Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Henney


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Henney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD contested claiming these Google news items make him notable. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-professional league or competition --Jimbo[online] 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Article even states he is semi-professional. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete as he has not played at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Relisted pr discussion at my talk page. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Matt Henny is notable given articles such as  The contestion on the prod was that he met WP:BIO, however the nominator simply argued that he didn't meet WP:ATHLETE ignoring that he meets WP:BIO, despite it being long established that WP:BIO trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One article says his manager thought had a good game, and could potentially be a good player in a league that is not fully-professional doesn't make him notable or pass WP:BIO in any way. As stated before, BBC produce hundreds of articles about players from non-league. --Jimbo[online] 10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If BBC has hundreds of articles about a non-league player, than we have the wrong end of the stick, and he is notable! Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "If the depth of coverage is not substantial", I'd hardly call one article substantial. There's no depth to that article, it just says his manager thinks he'll have a good year in league that is not fully-professional. If WP:BIO was by your rationale, everyone who has a story about them in a British tabloid would become notable. --Jimbo[online] 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.