Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Janaway


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Matt Janaway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY. His football experience referenced is "youth", which as best as I can understand it is the farm system, and the Nottinghamshire Senior League, a level-11 football team which would not seem to qualify him under WP:NFOOTY. References given on him as a businessman are a user-editable database entry at TechCrunch (not a WP:RS) and a one-sentence mention in a local weekly's article on his company getting an environmental award. Zero Gnews hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Utterly non-notable footballer, clear WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG in general, WP:NFOOTBALL as a footballer and WP:BIO as a businessman. Non-notable all around. GiantSnowman 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Playing at far too low a level to merit an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2013 (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.