Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Martin (footballer)


 * 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. JForget 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Martin (footballer)

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Original reason for PROD was "Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional match". Also think that he fails WP:N, due to lack of non-trivial sources. Big  Dom  17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - fails WP:ATHLETE but passes the parent guideline of WP:N, as he has a number of reliable sources which deal directly with the player in detail. GiantSnowman 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, how does he pass WP:ATH?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He doesn't, which is why I've said he fails it...GiantSnowman 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think he is notable for not getting signed for Everton? In a weird ironic twist - you nominated an Irish player that played in the the top divsion in Ireland, had multiple caps at under age level and actually signed for Everton for deletion! --Vintagekits (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He passes WP:N because he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about - the current guidelines say that as long as he has received coverage, he is notable. GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions for who he might and might not sign for in a local paper doesnt pass WP:N for me! What is he notable for?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, he is notable due to media coverage according to WP:N. GiantSnowman 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are conceeding that hasnt actually done anything notable. OK, now that that is out of the way lets look at the sources - they are short, weak, passing mentions and speculation. That does not consitute "significant coverage" - but of course he's English and playing in an English league and thats all the Anglocentric FOOTY Project give a fuck damn about. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But they aren't "short, weak, passing mentions" - five of the sources deal with Martin directly and in detail, and he is named in the title in two of them! You have to stop thinking WP:FOOTY is pro-English, anti-Irish - it's not! And as for me "conceeding that hasnt actually done anything notable" - I haven't done that at all. As I've said, he is notable due to media coverage, as WP:N dictates. GiantSnowman 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, playing in the 3rd or 4th tier of football in England isnt notable as far as I am corncerned - let alone the 5th tier. Linked with transfers to other clubs in just "shop gossip" and does not convey any notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete having another look at WP:N, although he appears to meet WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" (my emphasis). Therefore it could be argued that he is not actually notable. GiantSnowman 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. His time at league level has been limited to reserve football. No prejudice to recreation if he plays professional football at senior level in future. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Recreate if he plays in a professional match. Big  Dom  17:34, 1 August 2009 (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.