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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD closed for procedural reasons. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is on the first team of a prominent premier league team and has received a call up to his national team. At the time this was created he was the only player without a page on both squads. For an example of a player without a cap for Liverpool that has a page, see Sheyi Ojo. Seems notable enough to me. Eman52 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're not understanding WP:NFOOTBALL, Ward has not played for the Liverpool first-team yet, so shouldn't have an article; Sheyi Ojo has played for Wigan Athletic on loan so passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously fails NFOOTBALL at this stage, as he didn't play for Wales when he was called up, nor has he made an appearance for Liverpool yet. In terms of RS coverage, there's [1], which is good, but everything else is coverage of his transfer (so is routine), is local (Liverpool Echo), or both. There's a few bits on unreliable sources/fansites, but those obviously don't count. Whilst I'm personally surprised at the lack of "who is this randomer who has been called up to the national team"-type coverage, the simple fact is that he fails GNG as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league nor for his national team, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Separately, the media coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despit being in the first team for two seasons now, he has not debuted for Liverpool in any competitive fixture and has not been sent to loan as well. He doesn't seem to debut this season for Liverpool as Simon Migmolet is the first choice and second choice Brad Jones is back from injury. Hence he fails WP:NFOOTBALL.--Sammanhumagain (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage [2] Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not enough to meet GNG... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one in-depth feature combined with more mundane and typical coverage over an extended period (such as [3], [4], [5], and [6]) is enough. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it should be noted that the daily post is a regional newspaper as well. This is hardly a full page interview in a major paper. The rest is just routine transfer and match reporting. I still think this falls below the level needed for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the rest is routine (well the first of the rest isn't particularly routine, but it is indeed very short). I just wanted to make sure it was clear that there were multiple sources verifying the actual existence of the player and the facts in addition to the one good article. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why are you claiming it passes GNG? Because your sources clearly don't help it to do so. The only non-routine and not-totally-local source that seems to exist is the Daily Post one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?!? I stated clearly that I think that one Daily Post article COMBINED with more mundane routine coverage over an extended period is enough. Disagree with me, sure ... but why point out that the routine coverage that I pointed out was routine is routine? Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you know the routine coverage is routine, why are you claiming this satisfies GNG, when reading the notability page clearly states that "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it satisfied GNG. I said the single article satisfied GNG. I explicitly noted that the routine articles were mundane and typical; they simply provide verification for the facts in the article, rather than satisfying GNG. This is the 3rd time I've clarified this comment, which I think was clear enough the first time. If my point was unclear to you the first time, I apologize, but I'm not sure how many times I need to clarify what I said. Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not insignificant coverage in local sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SALT? That's going a bit far, don't you think? There's only been one AfD prior to this, which was closed immediately as having no rationale, and it's not like we're talking about someone who doesn't exist, or plays in Reading Division 4... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is User:GiantSnowman's justification for Salting? That seems completely and absolutely unnecessary for an article that has never been recreated, for a real person, who has some (though perhaps not enough) significant coverage, and has appeared on the bench for a top EPL club 11 times this season alone, and twice for his national team. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, it relates to the fact that the article was created by a confirmed sock-puppeteer. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! That makes a bit more sense then - though I think it's overkill, given the inevitability of the article. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that if you (or someone else in good standing) is going to start a draft, it would be better that the draft is started from scratch rather than retaining the taint of sock-puppetry. Once the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, that editor can go to DRV to have the creation protection lifted and then there can be no doubt about the article's legitimacy or validity. It's perhaps a bit "protectionist" but I don't think it's overkill (especially given the sock-puppetry case in question). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, exactly what @Stalwart111: said - @Nfitz: it might be advisable to do a bit of reaearch/digging before jumping down my throat in future please :) Giant Snowman 10:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has jumped down anyone's throat. Asking for your justification is not jumping down your throat - clearly there was something more to your comment, and you have now provided that. Nfitz (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, Salting is going too far when it appears likely that even if Ward never plays a game for Liverpool, he will one day represent another league club, either on loan or as a permanent transfer. Until he does though, Delete. OGBC1992 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - It appears that there is no consensus to keep the article, however given that there is already 1 good article about him, and he's appeared on the bench for a top EPL club 11 times this season alone, and twice for his national team, it's quite likely that he'll get a match somewhere sooner or later (such is the lot of a keeper ...). Let's put the article where it can be properly updated, rather than wasting someone's time in the future, unbeknowingly rewriting it from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not played. Article can always be recreated if he has a wiki worthy career. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2015 (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.