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 per WP:ATHLETE failure. Leave me a note if he makes his debut and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ayling[edit]

Youth player fails WP:ATHLETE. recently signed professional contract, but consensus is that alone is not enough. Most references supplied are from clubs own website - which of course mentions their own players, and blogs which are largely opinion, not notable sources. no news sources from mainstream media. --ClubOranje^T 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's been speedied twice before. Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean a speedy deletion candidate, which seems harsh if it was! What criteria. Given the time of year we're at I would like to see some of these AfD's (if they must happen) to wait a couple of months as this is when the transfer and loan deals will be done. I'm sure someone will quote Crytstal Ball at me but surely there has to be some general reasonableness. Eldumpo (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nfitz is referring to the fact that he had in fact been deleted twice before, the first time because the article made no real assertion of notability, and the second because it was a straight cut-n-paste job from a different website. The article as now written does not qualify for speedy deletion on the first grounds as it makes a claim of notability, and probably not the second as it has existed for a couple of days and no bot has identified it as a copyvio. Hence AfD, to agree notability has not been demonstrated. refer logs link above.--ClubOranje^T 10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable until he makes an appearance for the senior team. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I have been largely involved in editing the article (it would have been very nice to have received a notification of its impending doom, but no matter), I see that the two previous comments are based upon WP:ATH It should be noted that even if a subject fails WP:ATH, that "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". And that they may still be notable based upon a separate policy. The subject is only indisputably not notable if they fail all the relevant notability policies, just because they fail one is not a strong argument for their deletion. So although the subject fails WP:ATH, he passes the WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria. I will just make it clear why he passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria, To pass these the subject needs to have been the, uh, subject of at least two secondary sources, see: [1] and [2], clearly these two sources are independent and non-trivial coverage of the footballer. This means that he passes 2/3 of the relevant guidelines for notability (he passes: WP:GNG and WP:BIO#Basic criteria, but fails WP:ATH). Again I stress that failure of WP:ATH does not mean that the subject is not notable. I quote from WP:BIO#Additional criteria:

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included

Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

Regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As has already been pointed out, he currently fails WP:ATHLETE. As far as the sources on the page go, this is mainly primary sources (Arsenal's websites), a fansite and what appears to be a couple of paragraphs directly quoting from Arsenal's site. The only substantial source is the one from the Guardian which, although it shows that the lad is a promising player, doesn't show that he is any more notable than other promising 18 year olds playing for Premier League youth teams. Media coverage of football is pretty exhaustive right down to Level 10 and beyond, so simply having a few stories written about him doesn't make him notable in this area. There is no guarantee that he will break into the first team, and until he achieves something of note (either by playing competitive football at a fully professional level, or doing something notable in another field), I would have to say delete this article for now. If he does indeed make his fully-pro debut, a quick request at WP:FOOTY's talk page is all that's needed for an admin to get it recreated. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bettia above. To be honest, if you want an article on every youth team player (I'm sure I could find local press coverage for many of the Norwich ones for example...) then you're opening a set of floodgates. Wait until he plays pro and WP:FOOTY has been met - Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable, if this is kept then surely there'll be many more of these - Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See my keep above, he is notable under two guidelines, and only fails one, WP:ATH, which explicitly states that failure of it is not definitive proof of a subject not being notable. And deleting something notable based purely on a fear of more similar cases coming in is not an acceptable criteria. All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreate if/when he plays a competitive first team game in a fully professional level. --Angelo (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are suggesting that we delete it until such a time as the subject meets WP:ATH. But as I have stated above he is notable under two different guidelines, and only fails one, WP:ATH, which explicitly states that failure of it is not definitive proof of a subject not being notable. All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH. Sources are hardly extensive enough for him to satisfy WP:N. Removing all the Arsenal related fansites/blogs, one article in the Guardian about seeing him in one youth cup match and a few short paras on "tribalfootball" doesn't pass notability criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 13:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if you were to be that strict about the sources he'd still be notable under WP:BIO#Basic criteria Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under what part, I'd hardly call tribalfootball's article "intellectually independent". What makes that site even a reliable source? --Jimbo^[online] 14:42, 6 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.