Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Doe

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 speedy keep. This article is currently a Good Article, which wouldn't be posisble if he didn't pass basic notability guidelines. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Doe[edit]

Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Vintagekits (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep satisfied the Good Article criteria. Easily passes WP:N, with the non-trivial sources provided. Ridiculous nom. --Jimbo^[online] 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes, loads of sources - but they all say he played in the 6th tier of English football infront of crowds of 50! oh yeah - and he played with Theo Walcott as a kid - you dont become notable by association. The sources are merely local paper dross, reports local matches.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're scraping the barrell there claiming the reports are dross and crowd figures (which are clearly inaccurate). He is the main subject of at least two articles passing WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:24, 30 July 2009 (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.