Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Robertson (footballer)

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. While there is some validity in the comment that his position might at some point have some notability, consensus is that this is not sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE TravellingCari 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Robertson (footballer)

Not notable fails WP:ATHLETE. Did not appear in fully professional league game or represent full national team. Page recreated as partial copy of previously deleted William Robertson (English footballer) deleted under WP:PROD

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 12:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's creator, Pollensa5, should probably be warned about recreating deleted content. Basement12 (T.C) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely the captain, and player of the year, at Canterbury United, a team in the top level of football in New Zealand is clearly notable. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Athlete in the context of New Zealand: He is a professional player in the semi-professional league which is the highest level of the game in New Zealand (given that Football Kingz and Wellington Phoenix play or played in the Australian national league). It would be rather ironic if imported professionals fail notability but non-professional teammates who happen to play for their national side pass. dramatic (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nom) Current criteria demands fully professional in fully professional league. Teammates may pass notability by virtue of representing their country internationally - which is recognised criteria - not by playing semi-pro. Evidence is only that he is semi-professional as it is a semi-pro league. That he may choose to live entirely on the earnings from it is neither here nor there. It does not make any footballing achievements (or lack thereof) more notable.--ClubOranje^Talk 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league, thus he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Top level of football is not notable in New Zealand, period. Just because he's the captain and player of his non notable squad doesn't give him an article. GauchoDude (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No position at a non-notable club confers notability. If there were extensive references to how much better than any other player in the team or league in NZ national press cited I might be swayed, but at the moment the article makes no claim of notability that meets criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:33, 7 September 2008 (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.