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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Todd (amateur footballer)[edit]

Lee Todd (amateur footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To me, this is classic WP:BLP1E. I fail to see how this person passes notability guidelines. There are plenty of sources mentioning this one event, but nothing apart from this. Brilliantine (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move to Lee Todd's dismissal to describe the notable event. Andrea105 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it's a pretty sad state of affairs if the event is determined to be notable, and would say WP:NOTNEWS suggests it is not. Brilliantine (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events described in the Guinness Book of World Records seem sharply distinguished from the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that would run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand the existance of an article or a list relating to football records in general, but I can't see every single football guinness record (of which there are many) that has been covered by a few papers at one time or another as having viability as an individual article. Brilliantine (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere occurrence in an apparently large number of cases does not indicate non-notability: for instance, though the S&P 500 index is comprised of a sizable list of companies, each is notable as one of the largest publicly traded corporations in the United States -- see List of S&P 500 companies. Likewise, events listed in the Guinness Book of World Records which have also been chronicled significantly by other third-party reliable sources may be considered notable per se. Andrea105 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since his purported notability seems to hinge entirely on the claim that he is listed in the Guinness Book of Records, is there a source that confirms he's actually in the book? The linked Time article says "The Guinness World Book of Records said that it was the fastest red card known.", but that isn't the same as actually putting him in the book itself........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this person and event fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E...any mo' for any mo'? GiantSnowman 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ONEEVENT nobody. Guiness reference is trivial and not "indepth coverage".--ClubOranje^T 08:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear failure of WP:1E. --Jimbo^[online] 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Deserves a red card I'm afraid - non-notable person and event. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Let's see: either he or the event fails Wp:ATHLETE, Wp:NOTNEWS, Wp:BLP1E, Wp:N, Wp:GNG and probably a few others as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:09, 30 November 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.