Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Maisonnueve


 * 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. Formed consensus, and the articles on themselves don't provide any information besides the players' positions and date of birth. If there's something encyclopedic to be said about them, someone can try again with a new article. - Bobet 21:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Maisonnueve
This footballer plays for a club in a French amateur league, and have never played for a professional club.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: --Punkmorten 09:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Damien Jurado (footballer)
 * Romain Canalès
 * Florian Fédèle
 * Lionel Gelly
 * Yoan Benyahya


 * Keep. Nimes are in the third division, that's a significant enough league. ArtVandelay13 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as sportsmen at a high amateur level, per WP:BIO. -- Daduzi  talk  10:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO they must be "Sportspeople/athletes who have played (...) at the highest level in mainly amateur sports". With soccer not being a mainly amateur sport, the claim is not valid. Punkmorten 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Basketball is not a mainly amateur sport either, yet college-level basketball players are explicitly covered by the highest level of amateur sport clause. I will grant that the wording of the guideline is a little vague, but I think as far as football is concerned the highest amateur league (the English Conference, Serie C, French 3rd Division) is probably sufficiently notable.-- Daduzi  talk  21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first and second division players are notable, third is not. No Football Conference players are listed, unless they have played in one of the top leagues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are in fact Conference players who have articles despite never having played in the league (Tony James (footballer), Gavin Hurren, Nick Crittenden, Bruno Teixeira and so on). In any case, the issue is about the criteria of WP:BIO, not what other articles do or don't exist, and WP:BIO is quite clear about permitting articles on high level amateurs. -- Daduzi  talk  21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there English Conference players in Wikipedia? Well, let's submit all them for deletion, I will support it. --Angelo 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On what basis? -- Daduzi  talk  02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the basis that they're not notable: English Conference isn't a "fully professional league", for what I know. --Angelo 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Playing in a "fully professional league" is not necessary to fulfill the notability criteria for sportspeople at WP:BIO, however. -- Daduzi  talk  15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Football is a very professional sport in England, for what I know, and Conference football isn't another kind of sport, so the amateur sentence doesn't apply on it. --Angelo 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as basketball is a very professional sport in the US, yet the "highest level in mainly amateur sports" overtly encompasses US college level (including basketball). The clause may be badly worded, but I think the college sport mention shows that it's not just athletics/swimming/gymnastics that's supposed to be covered. -- Daduzi  talk  17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but while professional football players in Europe are signed up young, and can be playing in the first team aged 16 or 17, in the US basketball or American football players usually attend university and only start playing professionally when they graduate. So, the entire setup is different. (Also, many professional US teams aren't really, they're equivalent to football reserves.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, third division players ain't notable. --Angelo 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, the criteria for WP:BIO are sufficiently vague (and contentious to judge from the talk page there and at Notability (athletes) that I can't really justify using it to justify a keep vote. Additionally, the articles as stand contain little information that couldn't be provided on the team's article page. As such delete all as redundant and unsourced, but without prejudice against a later article (containing non-redundant, non-trivial sourced information) being created. -- Daduzi  talk  22:41, 25 July 2006 (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.