Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurtney Brooks

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtney Brooks[edit]

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

Has never played in a fully professional league, and has only played for Wales at under-19 level. He therefore fails this glorified essay, and as far as I can tell the GNG as well. --W F C-- 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --W F C-- 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Watford. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (He doesn't play for Watford anymore.) --W F C-- 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in the Football League Cup, a professional competition. Eldumpo (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In no way does a 10 minute cameo against Barnet confer notability under the WP:GNG, nor does Brooks pass the pick-and-mix-test. This is not a policy-based keep !vote and must therefore be discarded by the closing administrator. --W F C-- 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment. So appearing in a professional competition doesn't count? Okay then. Argyle 4 Life^talk
- In no way does a 10 minute cameo against Barnet confer notability under the WP:GNG, nor does Brooks pass WP:ARBITRARY. This is not a policy-based keep !vote and must therefore be discarded by the closing administrator. --WFC-- 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't get me wrong, my view is that WP:NSPORTS "doesn't count", as WP:ATHLETE was branded by the community as a complete crock of sh...muck, making NSPORTS recycled, rebranded sh...muck. I'm merely pointing out that this guy doesn't meet the lower notability bar that football editors hold, which strengthens my view that he doesn't pass the slightly higher bar that the pan-wiki community will hold. --W F C-- 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the same goes for NSPORTS. It's the essays fault that deletion discussions are completely devoid of empirical findings and that does reflect how footies vote in other discussions (as in AfDs of games). Sandman888 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of non-trivial coverage in any argument above, nor in any of my GNews searching. I see mentions, not coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ten minutes cameo shouldn't be enough to pass #2 of WP:NSOCCER. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 25 September 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.