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 keep, the consensus seems to be that he meets the general notability guidelines via the non-trivial magazine and media coverage, even if he hasn't played a professional game yet (WP:ATHLETE). Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Bouzanis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A year has gone since his previous AfD and he still hasn't played a game so still fails WP:ATHLETE. While there are articles about his choice between Greek and Australian national teams, they mean little under WP:NOTNEWS. The choice isn't particularly unusual either, see here for multiple examples Stu.W UK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears he has never played professionally or in the Olympics.--Rockfang (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While in general I support deletion of articles that do not meet WP:ATHLETE, the article appears to clearly meet the General notability guideline. The articles cited are specifically about the subject, cover a span of nearly two years (thus more than mere news or WP:ONEEVENT and the subject has played at national U-23 level. I understand the rationale but I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by deleting this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this and this in the largest newspapers in Australia contribute enough to meet the significant coverage criteria. Camw (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article fails WP:BIO by the subject having not participated in a fully professional league, it passes WP:N with ease. Having been kept in the last AfD, I think it's fair to keep with the status quo. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is if he got a career-ending injury tomorrow, what exactly is it that would make him notable? Stu.W UK (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt if that happened he would recieve further significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, further solidifing his notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad to see you didn't go for the easy or obvious response there. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll plead guilty to that. I'll try to atone. My real point I guess is that once so much has been written about someone by reliable sources, it's not up to us to say he's notable. The media has already said he's notable for us. And notability can't be removed. If you were notable but then fade, you're still notable in relation to wiki policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My only concern is if this sets a precedent where anyone who signs for a big team from a small (in footballing terms) country will be notable because they'll get written about regardless of whether they ever play a game. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it sets any precedent. The general notability guidelines are that precedent. Regardless of any games played or not, if someone's writing about them specifically in a major newspaper then that demonstrates a certain notability, thus the GNG. Many inane, boring and unimportant things pass these requirements. Need I remind you of the former featured article Spoo? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:N. Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet footy notability but has plenty of news articles about him specifically, easily passing general notability guidelines. (Article could certainly do with a trim though...) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:N, just like last time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be some items in newspapers about this kid, but this does not mean that he is notable footballer, it means that there are a lot of sports journalists out there who have nothing better to do with their time than write about a footballer who has never played even 1 minute of professional football. King of the North East 10:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N is not policy, and must be interpreted with reason. Appearing in the news thanks to wise journalists searching for another future world class player is not a valid measurement of notability. Who remembers of the 12-year old kid being signed by Man Utd? Is he notable as well? --Angelo (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your perspective here Angelo. Indeed, using common sense when discussing notability is a view I shared, and still share, with you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mulholland. However, Bouzanis has had more coverage than for just the Greece/Australia caps so I think he's qualified for significant notability here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mentioned the Greek/Australian issue in my comment, read it carefully. I am instead pointing to what could be 'defined 'notability of sources', that is a big issue when dealing with sports-related articles. All of the sources present the subject as a perspective football protagonist, which is an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL, none of them actually mentioning anything about the achievements he made at present time. Being in the news, again, is not a proof of notability: there is a lot of journalists around with a lot of spare time who enjoy writing about young footballers, hoping one day to be able to say something like 'well, I had predicted it years ago'. But, again, this is incorrect, it would be like making an article about a writer before he publishes his first novel, or about a band before they make their first song available to the public. --Angelo (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The style of the article needs revision - there's a deal of padding and non-notable info, which I'll have a bash at. Murtoa (talk) 10:35, 21 April 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.