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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Warrender

[edit]

The article is of virtually no interest; hardly any info there. This is mainly because he is not really notable. Although he has played for a couple of teams, there were not many appearances, and some of these were for reserves, etc. He no longer plays in a professional league, and this is not because he is too old, etc. (aged 23), he is just not at ALL a notable footballer. Willplatts (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 15 appearances in a fully professional league (see Soccerbase) is easily enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. The fact that he no longer plays professionally is irrelevant as notability does not expire -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also sources here and here, so he passes the general notability guidelines too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And for that matter here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here as well. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE and, thanks to the sources above, also the more general criteria of WP:N. To delete when we've kept several footballers that are even less notable (i.e. one relevant appearance) would be showing bias unless we also deleted hundreds of other articles. Suspect that it will soon be getting snowy. Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: let's put that down to a new(ish) editor not mainly active on football articles, and therefore unaware of criteria: confusion of famous and notable perhaps. Kevin McE (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I see what everyone thinks. I do still stand by my opinion though, and as noted above, I believe there are plenty of articles that could be done away with... I am curious, ChristheDude, what do those links prove? I am not familiar with all the rules, but 2 links to a local newspaper with articles about a non-professional club, and a link to the Beeb with a couple of sentences mentioning him? I'm not trying to be provocative, just what is it meant to show? Willplatts (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, Josh Fuller: this footballer was has played 20 minutes for Grimsby Town. Who in their right mind thought that this merited an article?? Willplatts (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE, and all the editors involved in the creation and maintenance of that policy. I understand your bewilderment, but it is a generally accepted principle in Wiki that arbitrary quantitative distinctions should not be made, so there cannot be a threshold of 10 or 20 appearances. So an absolute criterion, appearance in a fully pro league, regardless of number of appearances, is applied. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - To answer Willplatts' question, what the links "prove" is that the subject easily meets the requirements of WP:N, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. The policy states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The coverage is significant in that the player is the sole focus of all the articles, the sources are clearly reliable and independent of the subject, therefore he passes the bar with flying colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per stats provided on Soccerbase. --Jimbo^[online] 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Player has made 15 league appearences for Blackpool F.C.!! John Sloan @ 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria having played profesionally for Blackpool. BigDunc^Talk 19:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.