Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. Some fair points on both sides of the discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Porritt

Nathan Porritt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". PROD was removed with the reasoning "FIFA U-17 World Cup apperance alone meets WP:SPORTS". I disagree that an appearance at the FIFA Under-17 World Cup makes a player notable by those criteria, despite the competition being an "officially sanctioned international competition", as it is not a fully professional competition, nor is it the highest level of football. It may be the highest level of football for that age group, but there are hundreds of players who have played at the Under-17 World Cup (an annual competition, compared to the quadrennial senior FIFA World Cup), but never went on to have a fully professional career. The other case for Porritt's notability was his involvement in the 2006 tapping-up case involving Chelsea F.C.'s Frank Arnesen. In the original AfD for this article, this was not deemed to be notable enough for Porritt to have his own article, and instead it was made into a redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. This argument should still hold true today. – PeeJay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – PeeJay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep The section on footballers at WP:SPORTS does state that it includes Youth players in international sanctioned competition (i.e. FIFA). That was my point in removing the PROD, anyway. It was never based on the corruption allegation, per WP:NOTNEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the policy you refer to has been rejected by the community, and therefore is null and void. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - would ANY/ALL players on a professional sports team inherently be notable? (I ask because I've seen some that are questionable but are pro...)
• Delete Appearances in youth competitions don't merit a place. He has to make first team appearances for a major club. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Over three hundred unique hits on Google UK. 158 hits on UK Google News, including cites from the Telegraph and the BBC. Regardless of the merits of his resume as a soccer player, he seems to clear the WP:V bar.  RGTraynor  04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Perhaps in the future, but "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" and thus putting a page in now is a tad premature. If there are 158+ links/references, then userfying this article, expanding it with references, and then recreating it in a way that solidly references it to show notability would probably be the best option. This is borderline, though, I will give it that and I could see it legitimately falling either way. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I would say that by a very broad definition of "highest levels of amateur sport" allow Porritt to qualify as per Wikipedia:BIO... meanwhile, Google turns up a few writings about the guy, like [1] and [2] Watchsmart (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The two factors combined make it worth keeping for now, if he disappears in 3 years time that may be the time to get rid of it, however for now there is an argument for keeping the article. Ashl (talk) 18:47, 2 January 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.