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 --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ledgister[edit]

Joel Ledgister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:BIO as having never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Matthew Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment My decision here depends on the outcome of the discussion on WP:FOOTBALL. Oxford Utd are a professional team playing at a national level, and some people (including myself) support the inclusion of players at these clubs - perhaps we need to move towards closing that debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest putting this nom on hold until consensus is reached in this discussion about notability guidelines for footballers.King of the NorthEast 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't the people involved in a project likely have a broader than normal inclusion criteria for subjects involved in that topic? CitiCat ^♫ 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How will the new standard differ from the previous? More or less inclusive? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the current guideline. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which guideline? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He may be talking about WP:BIO, but the creator of the article himself just admitted that he's a semi-pro player, so that goes that policy This is a Secret ^account 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OOPS, WP:FOOTBALL isn't a guideline (?) That seems to be the closest thing to, and to further explain myself, keep per Tripod 86. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, WikiProject Football is a WikiProject... Mattythewhite (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be included as he HAS played for a professional club, Oxford United, though not as a regular player. Many articles have been created and kept for many players who have played as "reserve" players for professional clubs. Tripod86 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has never played in a professional league. Epbr123 (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPlays for a professional club in a professional league. Though the blue square premier does not contain entirely professional clubs, all clubs are at least semi-pro and the league has in the past contained entirely professional clubs. Therefore I do not believe we can call this league non-professional as almost all the clubs in it are pro or semi pro, looking to become full-time professional. In addition I believe the user may want to delete the pages in question as they are players for a rival team in the same league the team the user is a supporter of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinand4321
  • You've basically admitted yourself that the Conference National is semi-professional. And your accusations of foul play on my half are unfounded. I find it quite disgusting to be honest that you believe I have placed these on deletion because I support a club in the same league. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Disgusting" is quite a strong word there. At any rate I wouldn't put it past some people to do such a thing. ugen64 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a sports fan who knows nothing of European football, what I've gotten from reading related articles is that the league has four leagues above it. Please correct me if this is worng. In general players should play at the highest level for notability if there are no other factors. CitiCat ^♫ 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You are correct about the number of levels above the Conference National. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.....however you are incorrect in saying that players need to have played at the top level. They need to have played in a fully professional league, and in England the top four levels are all fully professional ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every Minor League Baseball player can be considered notable, correct? CitiCat ^♫ 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's a professional league, then yes.. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm going to change to Neutral based on the fact that many discussions have never brought a consensus to what a "fully professional" league is. CitiCat ^♫ 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by WP:BIO, a delete vote would be according, as this particular subject has never played in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete semi-pro player, fails WP:BIO This is a Secret ^account 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the long standing standard we have applied for meeting WP:BIO is that he should have played in the top four leagues; and he hasn't. BlueValour (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2007 (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.