Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Hewitt

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. If this player becomes notable in the future I will be happy to provide the deleted article. -- Lear's Fool 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Hewitt

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

Orignally PRODed, reasons being; Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. However this was contested by a user stating;

Clearly fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NFOOTBALL, however it is not so clear if Troy Hewit passes the WP:GNG, most of the coverage is local in nature, however this BBC coverage and this au.sports.yahoo.com could be classed as significant. On balance this should not be deleted with out wider debate.

These sources are fairly routine news items about a footballer that fail WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo^[online] 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL is "fit for purpose", hence why it remains a Wikipedia notability guideline. This article fails that, as well as WP:GNG - the coverage is by no means "signigicant", it merely consists of run-of-the-mill transfer reports, which fail WP:NTEMP. Giant Snowman 14:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly "not fit for purpose" as it does not reliably indicate if someone will meet the WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-specific notability criteria aren't expected to "reliably indicate if someone will meet the WP:GNG". They are expected to indicate that topics meeting those criteria are presumed notable. As clearly stated at WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". This is the case for all subject-specific criteria, not just WP:NSPORT. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem with that position is it is contradicted by the VERY FIRST LINE of the guide which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. " - that could not be any clearer as to it's intention. Mtking (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"help evaluate" ≠ "reliably indicate". The next two sentences say (unless someone's changed them again in the last few minutes): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability or sport specific criteria set forth below. 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." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when he plays a game for someone. The Player of the Round bit isn't really notable beyond one eventness and the rest as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT#Association football and WP:GNG. Media coverage is no more than routine sports reporting. Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:12, 6 May 2011 (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.