Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Verifiable? yes. Notable? no. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathan Wheeldon
Contested prod (no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your under the mistaken impression that WP:N is Policy, it is not! It is only a guidline. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why? What you fail to understand is that so-called "policy" is not descriptive or normative at all. We are not bound to abide by it. On Wikipedia, all "policy" is is a description of what has typically happened in the past. So you don't set out to "change policy"--you simply change what is actually being done, and then "policy" reflects that. What you are suggesting is backwards from the way it's supposed to work. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Kurt's got the wikipedia spirit. And not just because he clearly gets WP:UCS and WP:IAR, but also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would be wrong on multiple levels: the project, as I recall, is for an encyclopedia, not an undifferentiated and standards-free data dump, and the last time I checked, making claims that 99.99999% of editors don't buy is the furthest thing from "common sense" as could possibly be imagined. Hint: adding a couple of wikilinks and waving your hands vigorously does not an actual argument make.
- also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia - speaking of handwaving: was there an actual argument and/or evidence anywhere in there? --Calton | Talk 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although I take exception with your choice of nomenclature ("undifferentiated and standards-free data dump") because it implies a simple list of facts rather than actual prose, I fail to see the difference between what you mean by that and an encyclopedia. It's the same damn thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Kurt's got the wikipedia spirit. And not just because he clearly gets WP:UCS and WP:IAR, but also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The player obviously fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played a match as a professional footballer, and he has done nothing that would make him otherwise notable. – PeeJay 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article seems to have reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wheeldon has been noticed by the BBC, at least twice. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- not only does he fail WP:ATHLETE, he fails WP:BIO as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. Jfire (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note evidence [1] suggests that both Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire made their votes merely in response to my proding of the article on Corruption in India. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from a lack of WP:AGF, I don't see how a link to a page history is evidence. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus also !voted on another recent AfD at around the same time [2]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire have both made valid points in their !vote. I see no reason to assume bad faith !voting here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE, which is in itself a pretty generous set of notability criteria. --202.168.39.34 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep i have been playing football everyday for three years now at Reading as a youth...Torquay as A Pro and now in belgium...isnt it nice that an english player is playing pro abroad...i dont see what the problem is i have links from the BBC sport and i can get some from sky sports also.... what else do i need??? —Preceding [[(Mockingbirdyeah (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC))]] comment added by Mockingbirdyeah talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Above editor is the article's creator ChrisTheDude talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- ....and apparently its subject as well ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Above editor is the article's creator ChrisTheDude talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as it fails notability criteria. Given the above comments, significant tidy-up and removal of POV and COI material may be required if the result does turn out to be "keep". -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (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.
