Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt (3rd nomination)

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 redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Porritt

Prod removed (did not realise this had been to AfD before). Player's notability stems largely from a corruption case WP:NOTNEWS as discussed in first AfD. Second AfD seemed to be confused about whether playing youth football at World level merited inclusion- consensus seems to have been reached since then that it doesn't. He still has the one England u-17 game to his name and nothing else. Currently fails WP:ATHLETE Stu.W UK (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - between the notoriety over his transfer case, and the coverage given when playing for the England junior side, there is enough to get him over the barrier of WP:N, which trumps WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The FA link is a dead, although I suspect that source would fail WP:NTEMP.

International football players' notability is independent of their age. It doesn't matter if they're under 17 or over 30. People like this should be judged on the WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE is only an addition to that, not a replacement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he played for the England senior squad I would completely agree, but he didn't. He played one match for the under 17s. He hasn't appeared at the highest level i.e. senior squad. As for the transfer case, that's a reason to have an article on the case, not the player (although there's a case to make that even that would go against WP:NOTNEWS). If you want to say he meets WP:N without WP:ATHLETE, I would also query which of the given sources are non-trivial. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still discriminating based on age. U17s have a highest level they can play at too. The only reason they're not playing on senior squads because they legally can't. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no legal restriction on the age a player can play for their national team, or play professional football. An obvious example would be Wayne Rooney, who was playing for Everton in the Premier League at 16, and England at 17.Stu.W UK (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....and Gareth Bale played for Wales (the full men's senior team) at age 16 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:N. Giant Snowman 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again- which of the sources are non-trivial? If some non-trivial sources are added to the article I'll happily withdraw my nomination Stu.W UK (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this one more time. If anyone can tell me which of the article's sources are non-trivial, or add some non-trivial sources, then I'll remove my nomination. Stu.W UK (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they mean this one, as the others don't cover enough about him to pass WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If his notability stems solely from the 2006 allegations of corruption in English football, why not redirect there, as decided at 1st AfD? Stu.W UK (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Article seems to be more about the corruption of his move, rather than the player's footballing exploits. --Jimbo^[online] 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jimbo - if the player had received some coverage for his exploits on the field then we could debate the old "WP:ATHLETE vs WP:N" argument, but as the coverage is only for dodgy dealings by agents which happened to centre on this lad then he doesn't merit a break-out article from the already existing one on the scandal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect notable only because of a corruption case, but if we have an article about the case it's much better to redirect this article into it. --Angelo (talk) 08:37, 21 April 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.