Talk:Nathan Smith (footballer, born 1987)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Football: England Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Notts County match

As there seems to be a dispute over a paragraph in the article, I thought I should lay out my reasoning as to why I have removed it one again. In your message on my talk page you asked why I did not believe the incident was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, my reasoning is as follows:

Although a source was provided for the paragraph it provides no mention of quote "during an ill-tempered match between Notts County and Yeovil at Meadow Lane, Smith pretended to be injured to pressure referee Stuart Attwell into sending off Gary Jones. He then escaped with a yellow card for a late, knee-high challenge on Michael Petrasso in the second half. To rub salt into the wounds of the home supporters, Smith provided a great assist for Yeovil's second, and winning, goal as the Glovers completed an unlikely comeback. For evidence supporting all of this paragraph, see the official match DVD" the source provided merely states "Gary Jones was dismissed for a challenge on defender Nathan Smith despite clearly winning the ball" so offers no mention of Smith's conduct and therefore the paragraph violates WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR
As per a discussion on the talk page of Ashley Young, the paragraph is entirely negative and inappropriate for an encyclopaedic entry. See the biography of living persons policy and more specifically the sections on article tone and the repeating of gossip.
Finally as an aside I feel the content is unencyclopedic as it has brought Wikipedia into disrepute with the edit being reported as part of a wider story on the online abuse Smith has been subjected to.[1][2]

Please reach a consensus in this discussion before reverting the removal of this passage. Thanks Ytfc23 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require quotes. It allows for journalistic comment. The Nottingham Post article did not provide further information because they only have a limited amount of space. Nothing that I wrote is factually incorrect.
Wikipedia is a source of information and is not limited to good news about people: I don't imagine that the page on Adolf Hitler only addresses his early career as an artist. You cannot use censorship to prevent the truth being revealed about one of your players who will probably leave Yeovil when they are relegated again this season.
Disrepute?! Good publicity more like. Wikipedia is to encourage free sharing of information. Had you and Mattythewhite not gone to such lengths to stifle free expression, the story may not have made those local papers. The online abuse reference was to Twitter users. At no point was my amendment to the Wikipedia page cited as abuse of Mr Smith. In any event, Mr Smith has been found to have cheated by the panel which reversed Mr Attwell's decision. His playacting is manifestly clear from the video footage, to which I referred in my amendment as the source of the information.

Consensus with you is impossible because you are biased and ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.68.144 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2014‎