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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton[edit]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination, PROD disputed with rationale "is in the 1st team squad of a current Premier Lge team and can be expected to play senior football for a League team shortly" (which falls under WP:CRYSTAL as there is never any guarantee that he would). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his debut at a fully professional level - if this article was deleted and he then does make his debut, this article could easily be recreated by an administrator. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Keeping it on the basis that he might make an appearance in a fully-pro competition violates WP:CRYSTAL. Other than that, also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of verifiable references. --Jimbo^[online] 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. – PeeJay 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - on the basis that he hasn't yet made an appearance at a professional league. (If he does make an appearance, then the page can easily be recreated.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, player is generating a lot of interest on the net (e.g. when he was loaned to Bristol Rovers), perhaps not surprising as is he is in the first-team squad of a Premier League team, and thus has general notability. Eldumpo (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. It is in depth coverage by multiple independent published works by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Your rationale fails to demonstrate that. The article itself fails to demonstrate it, too. Cite some sources to do so, if you want to make an argument that actually holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while not having appeared in a first team match, he has been named to the subs bench on numerous occasions, which would make him pass WP:ATHLETE since one is still paid when they are named to the subs bench. He also has over 3000 Google hits including a profile page on all of the major football sites which would appear to establish notability. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google hits don't confer notability. --Jimbo^[online] 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That page states "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number" and if one checks those hits, many of them are from major football sites and given this player's unique name, they are all surely about him and not someone else with the same name. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - all of his Google News hits appear to involve his 1-month loan signing with Bristol Rovers, or the 1-month extension of the loan. There is no indication of his achievments or notability outside of signing with a professional club. I don't think that's significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes one gets paid if on the bench, but one also gets paid if not on the bench if one is a contracted football player. But then again, one also gets paid to deliver parcels if working for a courier company, make sandwiches if working for a sandwich bar...Its not about getting paid, it is about notability. Filter you ghits for non-blog, facebook etc, drop out the match reports where he is named as a substitute and other passing mentions and you find he has not done a whole lot of note - as yet. for those arguing hi will be notable soon...what is the hurry? this is not his resumè page. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above is a strawman considering that "fully professional" is frequently cited as a criterion of WP:ATHLETE, hence whether or not he is paid is relevant. There's no such professional criterion regarding sandwich makers. 70.4.243.55 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:ATHLETE states that he must have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - paid or not, he hasn't competed at the required fully-pro level. --Jimbo^[online] 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-notable player. GiantSnowman 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Claims of "he'll play sooner or later" are blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL. --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues lists English League 1, where he has been listed on the sub bench, as a "fully professional league." The arrogant Wikipedia admin commenting above me has claimed the above list as gospel so why in the world would he claim a player who's been a sub in English League 1, a "fully professional league," would not be "fully professional???" 173.103.34.38 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've given the IP above a Final warning for this and a similar attack on another AfD. Only 2 edits from this address, both attacking Angelo in AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I'm just repeating what has already been said here, but I think I need to say it anyway. He may have made it onto the subs bench for a fully-pro team but he hasn't actually played for them yet - that's the key point we're trying to get across here. WP:ATHLETE applies to players who have actually competed at this level - merely sitting on the bench or being given a shirt number isn't competing, and therefore isn't enough to confer notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - merely warming the bench is not "competing at a fully professional level" - what if he leaves the club tomorrow? Then we're left with an article on a guy whose greatest achievement was not playing in League One. And no, it isn't that unusual for players to warm the bench but then leave without ever crossing the whitewash - at the team I support, Gillingham, we had a player a few years back called Ben White who was on the bench a few times but never played - he got released and next surfaced playing for semi-professional Hastings United. So until this guy actually plays competitive first-team football, he doesn't get an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- no evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2009 (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.