Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Štěch

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. - Philippe 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marek Štěch

Marek Štěch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Youth player with no first team experience and only capped at youth (U-17) level, therefore failing WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Said it before and will probable say it again but....if Dean Bouzanis is voted a 'Keep' (and it was) a precedent has been set. Therefore Marek Štěch should be kept- there is no difference.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Bouzanis was kept not because of his status as a Liverpool youth team player but specifically because there was extensive third-party independent coverage available. I can't see the same coverage in the case of this player ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And you may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If you want to go by precedent (which is not a good idea), the most recent AfD on a youth player in a Premiership squad with no appearances resulted in delete. And you may also want to review your own comment from four days ago - "It should be a simple enough rule - no 1st class games - delete" [1]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I did say that but would just like to see it applied to all that fail this test!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So why are you voting keep here then?? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm under no illusions that this will be kept - I've been here before. I voted simply to highlight the inconsistency with which WP:ATHLETE and other notability tests are applied. Get more press for youth team appearances, play for one of the 'big' clubs - article gets kept. Ergo a Liverpool or Manchester United youth team player is more notable than one from West Ham, Port Vale or Crewe even though no 1st team appearances have been made!! - that's just big 4 bias.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all players from top 4 clubs are kept - Bouzanis is in a small minority - recent deletions include Daniel Pacheco (Liverpool) and Gavin Hoyte (Arsenal). As you've admitted to !voting to highlight an inconsistency, you may want to read WP:POINT. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the roster, there are bound to be verifiable second party sources for this. See Kevin Reiman for an American example for someone with no appearances (yet). MrPrada (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't see any obvious reliable secondary sources here.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Unsure if thats sarcasm(I'm seeing the Telegraph, BBC, ESPN, plus a hundred plus reliable second party sources at [2] including NY Times, Herald Tribune, etc.) but have you also tried searching in Czech? MrPrada (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Google News results seem to consist of cursory (one sentence) mentions of this player in articles about other things, which doesn't constitute in-depth coverage..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree, in the 100+ stories listed there are several with more than just tangential references to him, in fact, some of them are solely about him (albiet short articles), and then you fan factor in Czech articles like [3] from [4], I would be comfortable that he meets WP:BIO even if he fails WP:ATHLETE and can be included. MrPrada (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't understand why so many people are unable to understand WP:ATHLETE when it's really quite simple. If a player hasn't made an appearance in a professional league, then he/she is not notable. – PeeJay 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    Trouble is that it not followed. If WP:ATHLETE is to be followed then this article would be deleted but then so would others which have survived simply because people can find more spurious references to them via Google. Of course youth team players from the 'bigger' clubs get more press - but does that make them notable?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would say so, yes. A person who gets more coverage is, by definition, more notable, in my opinion. – PeeJay 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:ATHLETE.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Perhaps some of the confusion about how the standards are applied can be cleared up. WP:ATHLETE is the applicable notability guideline, but WP:V trumps every such guideline in WP:BIO; be someone ever so insignificant, multiple articles about the subject in reliable sources are prima facie passes on WP:V. In any event, this probably isn't the proper venue to debate how those standards should be applied.  RGTraynor  15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. However, I can understand Egghead's argument - whilst the Bouzanis article is well sourced (better than most football articles!) and will probably make a valuable contribution to Wiki in 18 months time, at the present time he isn't notable enough to pass. If we're to apply a standard, it should be consistent. It could easily be userfied until then. HornetMike (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The thing is that Wikipedia has more than one standard. The standard upon which Bouzanis passed is basic: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  RGTraynor  12:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hear what you say but that just isn't being applied across the board. For example - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Spence - an article on England's U17 captain. 3 references from his club, 3 from The FA, 1 from FIFA, 1 from the Guardian newspaper and a reference showing an action picture - result=deleted!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Presuming the Guardian article was about the subject and substantial, that'd be the sole independent reliable source; pictures, references from his club, the FA and FIFA wouldn't count. Only one reliable source cannot sustain an article.  RGTraynor  16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Thanks for that info. I will try to remember, in future, that The FA and Fifa pages are not reliable sources as per defined in WP:RS.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • They are not not reliable sources, they are just not independent. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • His club fair enough, but why are FIFA or the FA not considered independent? Are you suggesting that, because it's the governing body of world football, FIFA's website cannot be classed as an independent source on a random footballer? It's not like he works for FIFA, or reports direct to FIFA HQ or anything. By extension, does that mean FIFA is not an independent source on any aspect of football........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Should have phrased that better - I was trying to explain to Egghead what (I thought) RGTraynor meant by his comments (i.e. the sources not being independent rather not reliable) rather than my own opinion on the matter. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. No professional first team appearances, no notability: it's quite simple. --Angelo (talk) 16:03, 18 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.