Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Pitman


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pitman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD by User:Timpitman, potential WP:COI. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully professional level of football. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from article's talk page:

I wish to challenge the proposed deletion of this article. I contend that this article be retained for the following reasons:

1 Maintaining a coherent and effective user journey - Where articles about football clubs specifically contain a current team listing (as does the article on Brentwood Town FC) the user should be able to follow all or as many of those link as possible in order that the user is presented with a consistent user journey that provides access to as much related information as possible. Dead links only frustrate users and a high profile service such as this should be seeking to minimise the occurrence of dead links wherever it can.

2 Comprehensiveness and avoidance of discrimination - In seeking to provide what is, in effect, a database of football clubs and football players, the service should seek to be as comprehensive as possible. In seeking to exclude information about players simply because they have not at any time in their careers held full professional contracts discriminates against, and alienates, the thousands of people who regularly follow non league clubs. If the service is designed to be elitist in this fashion I would suggest that, in order to maintain consistency, the policy of deletion should be extended to exclude articles written about any clubs falling outside the Football League.

3 Inclusion of information directly related to footballing achievement - This article and the references appended thereto relate soley to the players achievements in football, which in my eyes is much more worthy of inclusion than some of the other information held on Wikipedia about other players at the same level. I would draw your attention to a similar article concerning Jamie Guy of Braintree Town which, apart from outlining the player's career, contains references to alleged bullying, brawling and racism, all of which is more suited to publication in a Sunday tabloid newspaper than a supposedly learned encyclopeadia. (Posted by Timpitman)

''End of copy. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)''
 * Delete Looks like a case of COI here, but that's not of itself a reason to delete. Nor is the rather promotional (not in the football league sense) language. The league played in is the old Isthmian League under its new sponsored name, and is not a national league, and is semi-pro/amateur. No indication is given of the subject's status in this respect, but given the age and number of appearances I would guess at amateur, which I think fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Correct me if I am wrong. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether he is semi-pro or amateur is in fact irrelevant, as neither is sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which requires participation in which all teams (and by extension all players) are fully professional. There are no fully professional teams/players at all in the Isthmian League -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - player clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Although all of the arguments laid out above by the creator/subject are extremely verbose, none relate to WP policy at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  Do not delete - Simply because an argument is expressed in precise (verbose?) terms does not make it invalid, and its not having previously been considered as part of WP policy surely should not prejudice its proper consideration else rules would simply be followed for their own sake and never challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.147.254 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of interest - Who is the final arbiter here, ie who has control of the delete button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.147.254 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator will make the call based on the consensus of the debate after around seven days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's someone known as a closing admin, unless the debate shows no sign of getting any delete !votes - in which case an ordinary (usually regular) editor can close after seven days. The closing admin or non-admin will have taken no part in the debate (except possibly providing neutral information). I don't know how the closing admin is chosen, or if they just come in and look at a list. For your information, it is good etiquette here to be logged in when you !vote (only one per oerson) or comment (as many as you like - but don't overdo it). The !votes and comments are weighed up by the closing admin (the non-admin will only have keeps to deal with), and a decision reached. If there is a mass influx of new accounts who have not edited anywhere else, they are given less weight than the known regulars - and may even be investigated to see if they are one person (see WP:SOCK. They are called SPAs - single purpose accounts - and usually say the same thing over and over. They will be read, though, just in case they say something worthwhile. This is not a kangaroo court, and new 'evidence' can be added here or in the form of changes to the article (which should be notified here). We can and do change our minds. I've changed three times in one debate. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The normal situation is that administrators who choose to contribute to closing deletion discussions will check the list of discussions due to be closed today but not yet closed and work on those. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpitman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 February 2011
 * Thank you for the information re required etiquette and the decision making process. I am glad to hear that there no likelyhood of anyone being a judge in their own cause. I am therefore happy to leave my original contentions in the hope that the wider considerations outlined will have some weight when considered against the rigid application of the existing rules.


 * Delete I can fully sympathise with Timpitman, and I do understand his point of view. However, as is unfortunately very common among people new to editing Wikipedia, his conception of Wikipedia's purpose is mistaken. Wikipedia does not seek to maintain "a database of football clubs and football players" which should be "as comprehensive as possible", but rather to make readily available information on subjects which have a significant degree of notability as demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. Timpitman, you are welcome to suggest changes in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies if you want to, but this deletion nomination will be decided on the basis of the guidelines and policies which exist at present, and unfortunately your reasons do not address those. (This is not the place for a detailed discussion of whether the notability guidelines should be changed, but it is worth mentioning that we have to draw the line somewhere, or we would have articles about my left sock. Wherever we draw the line someone will object, with cries of "discrimination" and the like. It is reasonable to debate where the line should be drawn, but not to suggest there should be no line.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that it makes a change to meet up with a footballer who has a command of the English language beyond four letters at a time (or seven, counting -ing). I don't meet many on the whole, but the only other one with a command like this was Steve Heighway. He too started off in smaller league clubs - and wouldn't have got an article at the time either... CU L8R? Peridon (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the last two comments, and especially that from Peridon. If my article is in the end deleted rest assured you will see me back as soon as I gain my first fully professional contract! Incidentaly, although there is no article on Wikipedia about 'My Left Sock', there is an article on the film 'My Left Foot' which contains a reference to film critic Jay Sherman wearing a My Left Foot sock given to him at the film's premiere...Timpitman (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one... Stick around anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim, if this discussion results in a 'Delete' decision, then you can request that the closing admin moves the page into your User space (User:Timpitman/Bio or similar) so that all your hard work won't go to waste if & when you make it as a pro! Good luck, GiantSnowman 01:56, 23 February 2011 (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.