- 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. لennavecia 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isa Bagci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Passes WP:ATHLETE. Subject is a fully professional footballer who plays in the Scottish Premier League, which is at the top level of the Scottish football league system — above the Scottish Football League. Varbas (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been blocked as sock of banned User:Azviz now. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My editing restrictions do not in any way prohibit me from making the closing admin aware of potentially invalid !votes, and accurately pointing out that you are misrepresenting facts is not a personal attack. The proper way to avoid having people point out misbehavior is to not misbehave in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please explain how your WP:BF allegations make my "vote" invalid. Varbas (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Banned users do not get to vote, so your votes are, as I said, "potentially invalid !votes", as you are currently under investigation. That's not bad faith, that's a simple fact. The closing admin should be aware of it, per AFD standards. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please explain how your WP:BF allegations make my "vote" invalid. Varbas (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My editing restrictions do not in any way prohibit me from making the closing admin aware of potentially invalid !votes, and accurately pointing out that you are misrepresenting facts is not a personal attack. The proper way to avoid having people point out misbehavior is to not misbehave in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails our standards for athletes in general and specifically for his field of play. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To be a notable athlete you have to not just be on a team, but make an actual appearance in a regular game. That it takes actual play is I think generally agreed, and makes sense too , as an analogy will all other lines of endeavor. Notability is doing something notable, not just preparing to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, he has never played for the Rangers first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete, the lad has yet to appear for the Gers; when he does, the page came be re-created. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; not enough independent subject coverage for WP:N, fails WP:ATHLETE in never having played. Recreate if and when --ClubOranjeT 09:01, 29 May 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.