Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Cartwright

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. east.718 at 03:23, December 1, 2007

Neil Cartwright[edit]

Wikiproject Football discussions have led to this being proposed for deletion since the usual notability criterion of playing in a suitably high-tier league has not been met. It's debatable as the subject in question appears to have notability in his own club, non-league Hinckley United . Prod was removed so bringing the discussion here procedurally. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability at a local level within his own club does not confer notability on Wikipedia. He's not made an appearance at national level and therefore fails WP:BIO. – Pee Jay 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with mind-numbingly great pleasure. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and probably weak delete I'm tempted to say keep but there's simply no reliable sources on the vast majority of his career or many of the details listed in the article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To my mind the record he holds makes him more notable than many of his bluelinked Hinckley teammates who have articles by virtue of a handful of uneventful Football League appearances. If this was well-referenced I'd say keep, but as it is I'm wavering. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As author I'm always going to say this, but this player is exceptional in regards to the club he plays for. Hinckley United are only 10 years old and this article relates to a player that has been at the club all that time, coming through the youth teams and then breaking into the first team, becoming the record appearance holder and captaining the team on many occasions. There is a reliable source on the internet for references (or rather was at the time of events), but at this level website authors are also volunteers and so space for news is recycled every year. For 'national' websites that have kept information online, I have added into references. Regardless if he fails WP:BIO, I personally believe those guidlines are too rigid and will prevent natural progression and growth of articles, but that is another argument for elsewhere. Mattythewhite simply dislikes me which would explain his comments, but there is a growing undercurrent of the users at the lower level of football feeling they are constricted by the few at the top level implementing guidlines as strict rules. This is why we feel so angry and frustrated, and the people that make these decisions end up needlessly arguing with us all the time. Deletion will result in a loss of valuable information in regards to the Hinckley United article. DJhinckley (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately without any reliable sources, I'll have to say delete. I want to vote keep for various reasons. But all I can find is that he was playing for Bromsgrove in 2001 which only backs up my delete vote. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, especially after this, but my vote would have been delete anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry, playing at the sixth tier of English football is not notability, even if he has played quite a lot of games for his team at that level. --Stormie (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Delete unless reliable sources can be found to suggest notability; having not played in a fully professional league, he fails WP:BIO for sportspeople. Unfortunately it is necessary to have a bright line on notability for footballers, like many other subjects, even if it does lead to inconsistencies as pointed out above. ELIMINATORJR 14:00, 26 November 2007 (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.