Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wardle

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; thus, the article is kept. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 10:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

John Wardle
Current chairman of a famous football club, and external link thereof. That's all. Needs lots more information, or deletion. Radiant! 10:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took out the link, because it wasn't useful and it seems like spam. He's notable, but it's a substub, so no vote. Kappa 15:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic content, although someone might add some while this is in VfD. Wyss 17:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Brookie 18:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a stub, no other grounds for deletion. I will categorise it. Nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding of policy, so please read up on it. Wincoote 20:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, it was just one line of text plus an external link. Are football managers notable? Which part of policy did you mean exactly? Radiant! 22:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are lots of articles about football managers, but this man isn't a football manager. He is more prominent than thousands of people with articles. It isn't the role of vfd to try to turn Wikipedia into a purist academic encyclopedia against the grain of established standards for prominence. Wincoote 08:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said that. I'm not omniscient, you know, and the current article does not establish notability at all. Like I said above, 'needs lots more information, or deletion'. Since you're so opposed to the latter, why not add to the article? Radiant! 11:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What does "un-encyclopaedic" mean? You appear to be voting on the basis that an article is a stub again, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. Wincoote 09:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Only speaking for myself, the article provides zero evidence this person has contributed anything out of the average to the sport or its management, for example. Wyss 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, stubishness is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is lack of notability. - SimonP 16:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment stubbishness may not be a valid reason for reason, but lack of notability is. Djbrianuk 19:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't. If it is, please quote the relevant portion of Deletion policy - David Gerard 15:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it is. In deletion policy, the first criterium is not suitable for Wikipedia What Wikipedia is not. From there, read the section 'Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base', and in particular, 'Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement'. Radiant! 10:32, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Substubs are A Good Thing. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - David Gerard 15:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 06:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.