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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete per nom Narom (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was created less than a month ago - it needs expansion with additional citations to reinforce notability, not deletion. Here are some articles to improve the article so that it meets WP:GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4. I found these via a Google search based in the US. I'm fairly certain if you did a search in England where the subject is from, you'd find plenty more per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given links above provided by HmLarson for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Passes WP:Notability. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Relist rationale: sources have been found since most participants in this discussion weighed in. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm far from convinced this meets GNG: the Cambridge News source is both a local one, and a very routine one; the Wales Online one seems OK; the North Wales Weekly News/Daily Post one is a routine article about an injured player; and the BBC Sport article listed here is fairly routine as well, talking about a player's transfer. But it is borderline, I think. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still a delete IMO, there are plenty of non league players (especially those in the BSP) who gain reasonable press coverage in one way or another especially if like this player you've played for more than one club in different parts of the country. The welsh press is essential regional coverage, outside of Wales it wouldn't be covered due to small size of the clubs. However we've kept Godfrey Poku due to press coverage in the past and despite having played for the team i support and i've edited the article I don't think it's notable enough. I don't see how a collection of cuttings from regional press plus mentions in the odd BBC article passes WP:GNG and suddenly makes a player notable. Due to the coverage the Conference now receives from national papers doing an odd report, the bbc doing every match and included some news stories copypasta from websites, the new deal with BT Sport for live matches and of course the very enthusiastic local press makes a player deserving of an article. If it does, you could quite easily justify articles for hundreds of more non league players who would fail on the very basic rules of WP:football. Narom (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wrexham have been in the Conference not the League since 2007/8. This is not a fully-pro league. Until WP:FOOTYN identifies the Conference as providing notability, we cannot allow articles on its players. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I've voted delete, this comment is silly. We can allow articles on Wrexham/Conference National players, as long as they meet GNG. Your blanket statement very obviously rejects this, which is daft. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 11:39, 27 May 2013 (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.