Talk:Marc Burrows

Notability

Although Marc Burrows fails the usual test for inclusion on wikipedia, i.e. playing in a professional league, I feel he merits an article given that he possesses a quite substantial record. Grunners (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are enough good sources (BBC, newspapers, club websites), to justify keeping this. Surely the person who has scored the fastest ever goal in world football is notable just for that alone? --Egghead06 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been up for deletion, comment here. Grunners (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge article

The result of the recent deletion debate was to keep, but continue debate on merging and redirecting here on this talkpage. I suggested merging content into Cowes Sports F.C., as that's where he scored the goal. I agree that this record merits mention on Wikipedia, but according to WP:ONEEVENT, that does not mean that he is notable for an entire article. So that's my suggestion, and pending the results of this discussion, I may go ahead and do it myself in a couple of days. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree over a merge into Cowes Sports. He's had coverage for both the speedy goal and his early demise, the front-page story on the Non-League Paper was based around his time at Christchurch. - fchd (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Diagree with merge. There is enough on this guy andthe fact that he is a world record holder merit an article. How many world records does a guy have to have to be notable on Wikipedia!!

It's not a question of having world records, it's a question of having sufficient coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are world records for just about anything. Please read WP:ONEEVENT. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Now i've heard it all 'it's not a question of world records'!!! Good luck, you guys seem to have got your pantyhose in a twist over this. If the consensus was keep you seem to disagree with consensus and be on a mission - same old Wiki - anybody would think it was running out of storage space!! How very 1980's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.63.77 (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with consensus??? Have a look at the deletion debate. The result was, and I quote "The result was keep. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page". So that's what is going on here. It's got nothing to do with server storage spage, but with criteria for notability and other policies such as WP:ONEEVENT on which there is general consensus on Wikipedia, regardless of whether you agree or not. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, 81.157, I am arguing for a keep, the same as you, just for different reasons. - fchd (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)