- 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 Move to Draft namespace. Nobody called for this to be moved to draft namespace (although some suggested user space) but this seems to me to be an eminently satisfactory solution. The new season opens in just two months and we will then see if he plays his first professional game. Everyone in this debate seems to agree that if that happens WP:FOOTY will have been met and the article can go in mainspace. SpinningSpark 14:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- James Marwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying reason for the last deletion still remains. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails still WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above and Userfy to Andybud with instructions to "hold his horses" until after the BBC mentions him playing in a fully professional league game. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:GNG with sources [1] [2] [3]. Also, even if he didn't meet WP:GNG is there any point wasting everyone's time deleting an article that only get restored in a few weeks. Jmorrison230582 notes that keeping the article violated WP:CRYSTAL, however this is not true. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't allow for future events unless they are almost certain to occur (thus allowing articles such as 2026 FIFA World Cup to exist). Can anyone honestly say they don't think it's almost certain that James Marwood wouldn't be making an appearance for St. Mirren soon? There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. This article remaining in place for a few weeks does no harm, so let's show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE; if something bizarre happens over the summer, the article can simply go to AFD at that time. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "If something bizarre happens". That means it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Are we going to have this argument over and over again? – Michael (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you still fail to understand WP:CRYSTAL despite being set straight previously then yes we will have to have this argument over and over again. WP:CRYSTAL requires something to be almost certain - not to be certain. This isn't a 16-year old who may one day play. It's a 24-year old who the team coach has said will be playing, according the references already provided. Procedurely deleting this article for a few weeks is absurd and is a violation of both WP:NORULES and WP:COMMONSENSE. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a failure to understand anything here, it is the failure on the part of Nfitz to understand (or at least accept) that their interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is not supported by consensus. Claims to notability of footballers based on potential future appearances have been rejected at afd no less than eighteen times this year alone. The invalidity of this argument remains one of the longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And telling us to wait for a few weeks for something that nobody knows for sure will happen instead of relying on past consensus is a violation of WP:OR. – Michael (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2014 (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.