Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pelc

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 A valid argument is made that the AfD shouldn't be bound strictly by the letter of notability guidelines. But in this AfD, that argument does not have support and consensus is to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pelc

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

Contested PROD; has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and also fails WP:GNG Giant Snowman 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has never played in a fully pro league, and he fails WP:GNG, thus making him non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Hi. Not entirely notable but 'Every Little Helps'. He may become notable if he progressess through the National Team Ranks but I find that unlikely. Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he last played at under-17 level, and is now 24 - I very much doubt he will become a full international, and saying he will violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's some uncertainty about whether playing in the Canadian League confers notability or not, but if not, then delete per nom. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully professional league and so hasn't earned notability. Eddie6705 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, don't understand this at all, he's played for his country and in a national league, what's the problem? Seems to be an attempt to enforce the letter of the rule over the spirit.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has NOT played for his country professionally and don't say he will either because that would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Delete because of failures of WP:GNG Spiderone 09:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "professionally"? He's played, there also seems to be enough press coverage of his various trials and movements to make this article potentially useful (or "pass GNG", as the wikilawyers would say).--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are nothing more than just run-of-the-mill and having trials does not mean to say that he will ever become a notable player. Spiderone 10:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has NOT played for his country; he has played for his country's under-17 team - a big difference! Read WP:NFOOTBALL, which says international notability comes from playing in an "officially sanctioned senior international competition", which he hasn't done. NFOOTBALL continues - "Players who have appeared [...] in a fully-professional league" - again, something he hasn't done. As for this so-called coverage, read WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as [...] sports coverage [...] is not significant coverage." Are you still positive he meets notability requirements? Giant Snowman 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be treating these guidelines as fixed law - he's come pretty close to meeting the guidelines in several different ways, though perhaps not to the letter, to the extent that Wikipedia can provide verifiable information about him and expect that people who might have come across him in various contexts might be looking here for more complete information about him. I just don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting this sort of article. --Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is he "pretty close"?! He hasn't played at ANY international representative level for 7 years, and he's not signed to ANY team, let alone a professional one...Giant Snowman 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say all of that about Pele too... --Kotniski (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pele has played at both professional and international levels, and so remains notable. This guy has done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what I mean - he's almost played professionally (in various senses) and he's played at almost international level. This will be my last word on the subject, but I still think if you put all this together he comes out as meeting the spirit of the notability requirements. The fact that it was 7 or 70 years ago makes no difference - Wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia of Now.--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I almost broke into professional badminton for England 5 years ago (true fact). Should I have an article? Spiderone 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestionHi, You just seem to keep going back on yourself and realising your wrong then try to cover yourself.You seem not to know what your saying, 7 years ago is along time ago now.

Even though Pele has no meaning to me he was a superstar. Everybody knows that. Everybody's heard of Pele. Not many have heard of Dan Pelc. What has Dan Pelc done that's signifacant? Anyway, no offence to Canadians, but Canada's National Team isn't the greatest team in the whole world-Especcially the Under-17's. I suggest you get more infomation-That's a start. Thanks, Pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, we ought not treat the guidelines as fixed law ... but we also have to have a pressing reason to set aside guidelines which enjoy wide consensus. What is the pressing reason here? That, well, Dan Pelc is a swell fellow, and, well, that it'd be awfully nice for him to have an article? There is no evidence that he meets the GNG, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, there is no "spirit" of notability requirements out there for him to meet, and if we handed out eligibility to anyone who "almost" met requirements, then hand me my Wikipedia article: my dozen publication credits in role-playing games are surely good enough. NOT. Ravenswing 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (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.