Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludovic Quistin

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludovic Quistin

Ludovic Quistin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. Delete. Springnuts 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Has played at professional level with Tamworth in Nationwide Conference. Player is full time not part time. Also had trials with Football League clubs. This is the second time Springnuts has nominated this article for deletion, can someone sort this user out please, I think he needs help on here. Thanks in advance.Jonesy702 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete fails notability--Sefringle 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Player has not played in a full professional league (Conference is not a full professional league), fails to meet WP:BIO. Ytny (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment unfortunately you are right, it's only 95% professional. It's distinctly possible that the only remaining non 100% full-time clubs will be relegated this season, so next year the Conference National could well meet the criteria. - fchd 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:BIO does say, however, "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." - fchd 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:BIO and precedent. HornetMike 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As per Richard's comment above, potentially the Conference could be fully professional next season, so players playing in it would then meet WP:BIO, but presumably that would only cover players who play in the Conference from next season.....? And then if a non-fully pro team were to get promoted into it the following year we'd then have to go back to not accepting Conference players as the league would no longer be fully pro.....? Aaaarrrgggghhhh!!!! ChrisTheDude 08:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the key isn't whether the Conference isn't fully professional, but whether it's always fully professional. Clubs from League 2 and up have stricter standards for facilities and organization, and professionalism is a requirement. Non-League clubs don't have to be professional, and as long as that's the case, it's de facto, not fully, professional. From a practical point of view, there's little non-trivial media coverage of Conference clubs and players other than in local and community papers, so it's harder to create articles with multiple reliable sources. And for the vast majority of players who haven't made it with League clubs, the Conference is where careers go to die, since there's much less upward mobility. So I think it makes sense to draw the line between League 2 and Conference. --Ytny (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the Conference is not a fully-professional league, not yet at any rate. Fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 10:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo 12:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm against deleting reasonable articles on minor technicalities. This guy is as close to meeting the noteability guideline as it is possible to get without meeting the criteria. The article is however better than many of those for higher-class footballers, and so I'm voting to keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia after all. aLii 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Sure, the article is better than those of many top flight footballers, but that's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it? :) I for one don't think it's a minor technicality - fully professional or not, the conference is part of a semi-pro setup. We're talking about a player who couldn't pass a trial at a non-Premiership club. We have to draw the line somewhere, and given that the professionalism of Conference clubs can change from season to season, I think drawing a line between League and Non-League is perfectly reasonable. If this player is really worthy of our attention, then he'll sign with a bigger club or help his club get promoted. We can always create an article when that happens. To me, that's a bigger benefit of a non-paper encyclopedia. Ytny (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - my heart is with aLii, but my head is with Ytny. There has to be a line somewhere and he falls below the accepted level. Daemonic Kangaroo 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - a big failure to meet WP:BIO; not only has he not played league football but he has hardly played at Conference level. If he is let in we may as well bin the standard. TerriersFan 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I cannot believe that all you people want this deleted, it is full of useful information, which is hard to get hold of on the internet alone, it has more information than most of the players in the higher divisions, dont you people have nothing better to do than go around deleting off peoples hard work, its a joke it really is Stew jones 16:09, 18 March 2007 (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.