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.
U-17 isn't notable and nor is playing for Eleven WiseSpiderone (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below evidence that proves notability. GiantSnowman 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You pasted exact this statement in at least nine (still counting) more discussions about football players recently, whether the league is already known as professional or not. E. g. Dustin Chung & Ateya El-Belqasy. Is there any reason why you deny notability even if notability is clearly given? Did you check each article and notability carefully or are you just pasting your vote? --Ilion2 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, all 9 articles didn't meet notability guidelines. They have since been improved, or new evidence has been found proving notability, and if any now ARE notable, then I'm changing my mind, as I have done now. I resent the implication that I'm saying "delete" on every article football put up for deletion willy-nilly. GiantSnowman 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete concur with above and still not sure this is "more" professional than, say, Class A ball. More evidence of WP:N needed. JJL (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played for a fully professional team or at the highest level of amateur football competition. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I wasn't aware the league his team played in is fully-professional. That being said, after being here a year and a half I still don't understand why all professional athletes are inherently notable. In sports like Baseball its even worse, a relief pitcher gets called up from the minor leagues (reserves) and pitches a single at-bat in a Major league game and they're automatically notable, even if there is no non-trivial coverage of that player. Why we can't just apply the criteria set forth in WP:BIO to athletes is beyond me. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because it would be grossly biased in favour of comparative nobodies who've had the good fortune to play in the era since blanket internet sports coverage began over top-level professionals who had the misfortune to play back in the "dark ages" before 1990...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there was adequate sports coverage before ESPN in various newspapers, local television/ radio, etc... you just might need to look a little harder for it. My point is this, if a contributor (hypothetically) created an article on an actor with an uncredited extra role in a notable film (and that being his only claim to notability), the article would be deleted either for failing WP:BIO outright due to lack of significant coverage, or for running aground of WP:BLP1E. The same would go for a purely local politician or a local artist who sells her work to local patrons who haven't received the requisite non-trivial coverage. Wikipedia policy grants blanket exemptions to the general notability guideline and the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources to athletes when it can simply be verified that they made a single professional appearance. It baffles me why the same standard that is applied to biographies of living persons in any other profession or category can't or shouldn't be applied to athletes as well. That being said, I respect the policy as it currently stands and also realize that this isn't the venue to discuss WP rules, that's for another time and place :) - 2 ... says you, says me 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, having a trial at Blackburn does not make him notable. There are probably many players who have trials at professional clubs and not all of them are going to be notable. Spiderone (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 17 July 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.