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. SoWhy 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Joseph-Dubois (English footballer)[edit]

Pierre Joseph-Dubois (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article on a footballer was originally PROD'ed with the rationale "Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Only ever an unused sub for Reading and all other clubs do not play in a fully pro league (or did not at the point when he was with them)". This was disputed by the article's creator, Galesbury, mainly on the grounds that making it as far as the substitutes' bench for a Premier League team is still a big deal. So in the interests of fairness I have brought it here for wider discussion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Players have to play for teams in fully professional leagues, not simply be named on the bench. Fenix down (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG and is encyclopedic given a broad base of reliable sources showing professional WP:NFOOTBALL as the main income, playing full-time football ^[1], and having been named in the starting squad-line-up for a team competiting in the highest profile league in the world. These examples show how the subject closely parallels (a criteria of NFOOTY). The subject has been cited by Reading FC^[2]as an alumni whom has achieved first-team status. The subject has a full remit of sources (BBC, Sky etc) that are examples of " multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Taken on-balance the subject has a comparable football career, or WP:GNG to [Joe Sheerin], who played one minute for Chelsea, (who has a less significant career thereafter, and has far less verified sources), or Jamie Slabber who played 11 minutes for Tottenham FC, and has since played the same level as the subject (and same teams), or Aaron Tumwa of Margate FC who has played no English Pro-clubs, (though did play for the the 151st ranked (from 199) team in the world)^[3] Again, just comparing first team status in the Premier League and a long merited career in Football as comparable to playing for Antigua and Barbuda. Lastly, I list Christian Nanetti who has played 10 minutes in the League of Ireland but who has exited on Wikipedia for longer than that, on account of the wider career and WP:GNG within football, similar to the subject. I give these examples of why it is perhaps not just the NFOOTY) which should be considered because there is a broader balance, evidence over time and body of encyclopedic material available to support the page inclusion. To delete this page would minimize being in the team for a first team match at Anfield, between two Premier League Teams. Thanks to ChrisTheDude for shepherding this discussion to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - had a bit of a search around and could find anything significant to merit WP:GNG inclusion. Also fails WP:NSPORT due to never playing at a fully-pro or full international level. On a side note, this page has twice been deleted before once in 2007 and once in 2013. --Jimbo^[online] 10:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jimbo Spiderone 18:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CAPTAIN RAJU relisting: why is this necessary when you have listed it, the discussion has proceeded to a consensus which is unreached. What you have done is to railroad a decision, bullying in part. I must say, the content and discussion aside that there is not a single bit of commentary on the content, more than repeated (which i thought was not allowed) reports of fails WP:GNG fails WP:NSPORT - but none of you have made any attempt to qualify against my validation above. And as a side note: I have never written about this subject (person) before, so any prior submissions simply act to back up some of my reasons in regards WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.53.133 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, which the article's creator does not seem to understand. Hopefully the closing admin will discount the duplicate !vote above, which appears to be Galesbury restating their case. Number 57 08:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Number 57 - please refrain from posting cheeky comments or making aspersions in my username. The W:NFOOTY is fully understood, but not the end of all arguments or justifications, and your motivation for deletion offers no new insight, no substantiated information, and is not particularly constructive. 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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.