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. Arguments based on WP:NFOOTY aren't reckoning with the spirit of WP:ATHLETE, particularly paragraph two: "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Such sources were not brought forth to rebut the argument that the article fails the WP:GNG. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Hadrava[edit]

David Hadrava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Courtesy deletion request on behalf of the subject (via OTRS). A single appearance as a substitute in a Football league Trophy game and some pre-season friendlies barely seems to fulfil WP:NFOOTY if at all. Nthep (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Nthep (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it is not a hard and fast rule, but a rule of thumb, and makes it clear that deviation from the rule of thumb is permitted in borderline cases. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, WP:NSPORT states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." As Sir Sputnik stated, these are rules of thumb which can be used to determine whether an individual is likely to meet WP:GNG. One appearance in a WP:FPL before returning to non-league play hardly meets GNG. — Jkudlick tcs 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the standard in the guideline is raised to say 10 games, then some editors will argue that those that play 10 games barely meet the standard and should have their articles deleted. It seems like in your opinion many of the WP:NSPORTS articles have too low of a standard. My suggestion would be to work to change the guidelines. If the community agrees with you, then the guideline can be changed and re-evaluation can occur. However, the community has set this standard and we have to go with it. This does not mean automatically keep, but it does mean presume notable unless shown otherwise. Just because you don't like the guideline/think the standard is too low does not mean we should undermine what the entire community has deemed appropriate for presuming notability. In short, work to change the guideline if you think it needs changed as opposed to trying to cause deletion of articles that meet the guideline and undermine the work of the whole community in creating that standard.RonSigPi (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you said boils down to nothing but opinion. And that opinion conflicts with the guideline. You say no sources exist, but provide no evidence that this is the case. You said the the guideline is to help evaluate, but more specifically it creates a presumption. Simply saying that sources don't exist does overcome the presumption that sources do exist. Have you gone to libraries in Colchester and Reading to go through the actual physical newspapers of that era to evaluate the sources? He played over 13 years ago and many potential sources from the Internet likely have been taken down. The whole point of the guideline is that sources such as these in the library do exist without forcing editors to hunt them down. If you want to overcome the presumption, then you can select to do so, but the burden is on you. Overcoming that presumption, especially when talking about a player that last played over a decade ago, requires more than a Google search.RonSigPi (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?!? This player played just over half an hour once in a WP:FPL. The remaining derivative of his career was in very low level leagues. He has asked for his page to be deleted and to be honest, any sources in the local libraries are going to be local by definition and would not satisfy GNG. Furthermore clear consensus has been shown above that players with similar careers are generally considered non notable. Finally what is the logic in presuming sources exist when none have been found? That makes no sense and if employed here could be employed in any argument where the suggestion was the player was not notable. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep. It looks like GNG could be met with some effort. This one is pretty in depth and took only a few seconds to find.[1]Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re read. Most of the article le is not even about the player in question. Secondly the element that is is just WP:ROUTINE reporting about his contract not being renewed. It is essentially composed of the normal empty "we wish him well" platitudes provided when anyone leaves a club. There is no depth to this whatsoever. At least half of this article is actually about Ruel Fox. Fenix down (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (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.
More