Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Kidd


 * 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD A7 (no explanation of significance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Theo Kidd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources cited to prove notability, the only source is the website of his club. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is all over the place, each paragraph appears to be about a different person, for example the paragraph under Altringham is about an ex Oldham Athletic player whereas the personal life section is about a music graduate? In fact this could be given a speedy delete for been a blatant hoax Seasider91 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment decided to put a speedy delete notice on for nonsense as that is what it is Seasider91 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's most certainly not "nonsense". A "nonsense" article is one that is totally incomprehensible, essentially a bunch of random characters. As the policy states, this excludes "poor writing", and "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." I declined the speedy. I make no judgment as to whether the article merits inclusion in general terms, however. --  At am a  頭 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Put on speedy for vandalism as it obviously contains misinformation Seasider91 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Have some doubts about the article myself, e.g. cannot find mention of team called Ardwick Rovers, but even if not complete fabrication not notable as has not played football at serious professional level. PatGallacher (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Though not, technically, nonsense, it appears not to meet the notability guidelines. Deb (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is not, by definition, nonsense. But it clearly satisfies speedy deletion criterion A7. I have deleted it on that basis. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:04, 13 May 2014 (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.