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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ford[edit]

Stuart Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Completely unreferenced article, tagged as hoax. I can find no hits for a "Stuart Ford" that match this guy's alleged story. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC) See my comment dated 10 February below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No refs and no proof of notability. Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no trace this can be found online, probable WP:HOAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuffledThud (talk • contribs) 10 February 2010

*Delete - can't find any sources to verify the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • striking recommendation, looking at comments below I do not know enough about this class of articles to make a recommendation. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article creator has placed some marginally reliable references in the article, on the article talk page, and on my talk page; as a result I'm backing off on the hoax claim. However, my opinion is still delete on notability grounds. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable in the usual way and WP:ATHLETE would not apply, in that Hednesford Town F.C. and Gresley F.C. are not the highest level of competition. If he ever appears in a game in the Premier League or a team while it's in the championship division (formerly First Division) of The Football League, he'll be a shoo-in. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - details match with this player. Was registered for some league sides, and article claims that he made a small number of Football League appearances. Warofdreams talk 12:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable sources show that he played for Doncaster Rovers in 1993/94,[1] when they were in the Football League, and made 5 professional league appearances for Rotherham United and at least 22 for Scarborough F.C..[2] I don't know what searches those commenting above were doing, but I found these easily by performing the obvious searches for the subject's name alomg with the professional clubs that he is said to have played for. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how WP:ATHLETE's "highest level of competition" language applies to soccer/football leagues in other nations, where teams move up or down from one division to another (i.e, the teams with the best records in a lower division are promoted to a higher one, and the teams with the worst records are demoted). The Football League has 70+ teams overall, of which 24 are at its highest level in any given year. In North America, there's really no concept of entire teams moving up and down, although individual players are promoted to or demoted. Thus, in ice hockey, the 30 teams in the National Hockey League would be the top level in the U.S. and Canada, with a similar number of teams in minor leagues (AHL, ECHL, etc.). A similar analogy would be professional baseball, with 30 teams in the two major leagues (AL and NL), and an equal number at the AAA level (PCL and IL) and at the AA level (EL, TL, SL). I'm wondering if there's some type of guideline on whether highest level of competition refers to the highest division. If not, then the inclusion criteria for soccer/futbol/football may be broader than that of other sports. Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "highest level of competition" language? Please read the guideline rather than make up wording that isn't there. This subject clearly passes the language that is actually in WP:ATHLETE, i.e. "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, "fully professional", I stand corrected on that point. With that vague language giving room for modification, most of the sports fans (including those of soccer/football) have made their own decisions about what that includes and what it excludes, so that there's not a free-for-all of including everyone who's ever received a paycheck. In the case of soccer/association football/futbol it turns out that the consensus standard is in "football/notability". In reading the language therein, it looks like cousin Stuart would qualify ("Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability). Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") That being the case, I shall change my vote to a reluctant Phil-Bridger-is-right keep Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your grudging (and please don't take that word as disparaging) acceptance of my point. I would point out that "fully professional" doesn't mean anyone who has accepted a pay check. The word "fully" means what it says - players in the top four levels of English football, which have gone by various names leading to the ludicrous position whereby the fourth level is called League 2, don't just receive a paycheck, but are expected to turn up every morning for training, so can't hold down any other regular job. There are plenty of teams below that level where players get paid to do an hour or two of training each evening after their day jobs and turn out for matches in leagues such as the Football Conference. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Phil Bridger. matt91486 (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2010 (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.