Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Forbes (footballer)

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. Singularity 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Forbes (footballer)

Stephen Forbes (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Prodded as "Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has not played in a fully professional league." by User:Yatesy1988. Prod removed by myself because it appears he does play in a pro league. Yatesy1988 attempted to nominate it for deletion, I am procedurally completing the nomination on his behalf. UsaSatsui (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per my reasoning above. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He has never played in a pro league. While he is under contract with Rangers, who do play in a pro league, he has never actually played a match for them. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepAbstain. If the player has played in a professional league, then that would mean he passes ATHLETE. Celarnor Talk to me 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • He has never played in a pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - eh, ATHLETE is merely a guideline, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that merely kicking a football doesn't entitle one to a berth in an encyclopedia - that some further notability should be asserted. And, even if he does meet the criteria, not every article that can be created should be created; enough "X is a player on Y team" micro-stubs already befoul Wikipedia, so one less won't be missed. Biruitorul (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Microstubs, eh? Punkmorten (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a notion of inherent notability, but its application should be limited. For instance each of these guys is notable for having been a head of state, even if many of them have one-line biographies. With footballers the claim is far more tenuous. As for the communes: first, again, yes, the idea is that all cities, towns and communes possess inherent notability and have at least some expansion potential. The more important purpose for which I set about creating those, however, is precisely to forestall the creation of "articles" on villages - commune subdivisions - which are so small as to lack notability. So yes, I'll swallow 2800 microstubs with expansion potential if that helps keep 13000 of them without out of here. Biruitorul (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - We get loads of these when teenage footballers get their first junior contracts with clubs. He may be signed to a team that plays in a pro league, but he's never actually stepped foot on the pitch in a pro game, and therefore actually fails WP:BIO for athletes. The infobox states this clearly, "0 games". Black Kite 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we have to wait until he does his first footballing or whatever with his team before he's considered notable? I mean, I know absolutely nothing about the sport, but I don't see a big difference between being on the team and having played a game with the team. Celarnor Talk to me 06:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes - it may seem odd, but the system in the UK means that with major teams, the vast majority of young players who get junior contracts end up never playing a game. Of course, some of those go on to play for other pro teams, but many never play a pro game at all. Black Kite 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he actually plays a match in a pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But he's in a pro team, isn't he? He's been signed to Rangers F.C., which would mean that he'll be playing with them at the begenning of the next season...? Celarnor Talk to me 08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's crystal balling and in no way guaranteed. Plenty of young players have signed to big clubs but wound up being "let go" without ever playing a match...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I figured that once you were signed then you were automatically going to be playing with the team when they start playing the next season. Doesn't really make sense to pay someone to not play football, but whatever... Celarnor Talk to me 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ATHLETE. No professional appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently getting signed to a team doesn't mean the person in question is going to be playing on the team. Doesn't really make sense, but if that's the way it works, then he fails ATHLETE until he plays a game. Celarnor Talk to me 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, naturally a team needs to have more than 11 players on their books in case of players getting injured, losing form, etc. A club of the stature of Rangers will probably have around 40 professionals on the books at any one time, and sometimes players just get overlooked for selection every time and then ultimately released from their contract. My own club, Gillingham (not a team of the stature of Rangers but still a professional team), just released a young player called Tom Bryant who had been on a professional contract for one year but was never picked to play. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I just don't know anything about sports. :P Celarnor Talk to me 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability. GiantSnowman 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete just being on the roster or "under contract" doesn't confer notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. He's -on- the team, isn't he? That makes it likely he will play. I really don't like the "If he plays, recreate it" argument. Isn't it just easier to delete it later on if he doesn't play? Unless soccer clubs routinely sign players to contracts they have no intention of ever using...--UsaSatsui (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no being on the team doesn't mean he will play. Ask any member of the New England Patriots practice squad -or- anyone that attended the Peterborough United Youth Academy -or- any other athlete. Just being on the team doesn't guarantee playing time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It makes it fairly likely but by no means guaranteed. As I mentioned above, the team I follow signed a young player to a pro contract a year ago but released him a couple of weeks back without ever having used him in a match. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And here's an example of a player who was signed to two professional clubs without ever playing for either...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete easily fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Athlete, has not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation once he makes his first-team debut. A teenager moving through the ranks at Rangers has a good likelihood of being article-worthy sometime soon... just not yet. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 22 May 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.