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 No consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Sterling[edit]

Raheem Sterling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This player has never played even one second of a competitive first-team match for a fully professional club. The content of the article makes a lot of guesswork regarding potential notability (potential fee rising to £5m, potentially the youngest player to play for Liverpool F.C.), but nothing concrete. The only truly notable thing he has done is score five goals in a game, but that was for Liverpool's youth team and therefore not particularly groundbreaking. Similarly, his transfer from QPR is hardly noteworthy, as youth players move to big clubs all the time, and often for ridiculous amounts of money. – PeeJay 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Seems to meet WP:NSOCCER [sorry, daydreaming...] WP:GNG without difficulty. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? That policy says that a player must have either "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics)" or "appeared in a fully-professional league". This young player has done neither -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I was daydreaming and typed the wrong policy. See also the two previous deletion discussions for this article. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - as much as it pains me to do this - a 16 year old footballer with no appearances?! I'm 22 with no appearances, can I have an article as well please? - this probably just scrapes WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG imo  Francium12  18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say that about a great many young footballers who have gone on to achieve jack all in the professional game. – PeeJay 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep your everyday uncited unreferenced youth player is a bit different to Sterling who is receiving coverage in local and national newspapers beyond the norm. Koncorde (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean I can create an article on the great Madin Mohammed? Seriously, routine tabloid sports journalism is not news. JS^{Rant Away} 11:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Youth team football, whether Under-21s or Under-7s, is not notable, regardless of the potential any players at that level may show. – PeeJay 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - IMO, people who say "WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE" are wrong. A footballer's notability is measured by what he/she achieves on the field, not by how many column-inches they get. So far, Sterling has yet to achieve notability as pretty much all his career has been at youth level, and the overwhelming consensus is that youth team appearances (international or otherwise) are not notable was far as Wikipedia goes. This article can easily be recreated if and when he makes his senior début at a professional level, but not before. —BETTIA— ^talk 14:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, people who say "WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE" are wrong. I'm sorry to interfere, but your personal opinion is actually irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE says in clear text, black and white, that "subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline." What's ambiguous about that? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The word "may". —BETTIA— ^talk 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, no. What it means is that not meeting WP:ATHLETE does not automatically rule out a subject from having an article. So long as anything meets the WP:GNG, it is notable, regardless of any more specific guideline, full stop. In that sense, yes, GNG trumps ATHLETE. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure that WP:ATHLETE trumps WP:GNG? I'd have said it was the other way around, but I still don't think this guy passes either. – PeeJay 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel it does as far as sportsmen/women are concerned, but that discussion isn't really for here. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That is incorrect. If the person gets significant coverage, that is an indication of notability, regardless of his achievements as an athlete. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Nothing exceptional about this guy. Another youngster who could either make the grade or not play professionally. Rhain Davis has received more coverage than Sterling and is not notable either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting would simply be a waste of time. This young player is already attracting much attention due to his skill set. It is only a matter of time before he makes his professional debut and would then have this page restored anyway. As stated above, exceptionally talented sporting youngsters have had pages created about them before their professional debuts (Lebron James) before. Maza1987 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.81.254 (talk)
  • Restoring a deleted article is not a big deal. Admins are able to restore an article to the exact state it was in before it was deleted. So "It would cause a hassle" is not a valid reason to keep this article. Oh, and neither is "He'll probably go on to have a decent career". – PeeJay 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references in the articles already demonstrate Sterling has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The coverage is in major national newspapers from England, Jamaica, the US and he is not simply mentioned in passing, the articles actually go into detail and are not trivial. The articles are also for different events, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. When a person meets the GNG, it becomes completely irrelevant as to whether they pass/fail the subject specific guidelines. As far as I can tell, the SNGs (of which NSPORTS is one) were created to show which articles typically meet the GNG. If a subject meets GNG and does violate a policy, there is no reason not to keep it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would like to remind people that the result of this AfD may set a dangerous precedent. If we start letting people create articles for footballers who have never played a game just because they got a couple of column inches in the media, we will be opening ourselves up to a tidal wave of previously non-notable football biographies. Is that something we really want? – PeeJay 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes  Francium12  03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly think there are a "tidal wave" of junior players that meet GNG, but fail to meet NFOOTY. Also, to pass GNG, more than "a couple of column inches" is needed; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are independent and not local news) is needed, which should be easily enough to keep out the non-notable cruft and include only the notable youth players. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, This athlete is now non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. To keep is to ignore the principles of WP:SPECULATION. Keeping the article would set a perilous precedent, and would instigate a slippery slope for future deletion discussions. If this person achieves notability in future by virtue of his accomplishments, then this article can be recreated at that later date. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How can he be "now non-notable"? Notability is permanent. Once notable, always notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 07:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably the editor means that, in his opinion, at this point in his career Sterling has never been notable....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passess WP:GNG. Still. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - amended to Delete, see below. Topics which pass the general notability guideline are "usually worthy of notice" (emphasis mine). The guideline itself contemplates that idea that a topic may be technically capable of fulfilling the criteria while still falling short of the standards for inclusion. I make no determination whether that is the case here or not. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but usually because the articles violates a policy, such as WP:NOT or WP:BLP. I would hazard a guess at saying that the times when subjects have passed GNG and not violated a policy, yet still been deleted, would be perishingly rare. Jenks24 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I do think this article falls afoul of WP:NOT. Specifically, WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, the subject has received considerable media attention. But he has not received considerable media attention for anything that, itself, meets the expectations of notability. There's a lot of talk that he might have become the youngest Liverpool player (but wasn't), or that he might become a future star if he plays in a professional league (but he hasn't). That, to my mind, is what the "presumption" section of the GNG is about; sure, there have been a lot of words put to print about this player, but what has he done? Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG, which does in fact trump WP:ATHLETE and any other subsidiary policy. matt91486 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just delete it for goodness sake, fails WP:ATHLETE clearly and fails WP:GNG, where is all the coverage. The only coverage on him is becoming the youngest Liverpool player, (which didn't happen) and scoring 5 goals in a reserve game or whatever it was, hardly notable that is it.–LiamTaylor– 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG, as lack of notability argument is not convincing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To all those who are saying we should keep this article based on WP:GNG, on what aspect of Sterling's career are you basing this assertion? The only thing I can possibly see that would support this is his transfer from QPR to Liverpool, and even then he's not the only youngster to have joined a big club for stupid amounts of money. Furthermore, WP:GNG only says that an individual may be notable if he/she has received significant coverage in third-party sources. Surely this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT? – PeeJay 09:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - still a footballer who hasn't made it. Fails WP:NSPORTS specific guideline as he hasn't played in a professional league, only youth appearances, no senior international appearance (I don't think anyone argues that point). But I don't buy the GNG argument because he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. To my mind there is nothing but routine coverage and tabloid sports journalism by sports journo's hoping to uncover the next Rooney. Most of it is speculative and trivial; yes, he could have been the youngest Liverpool player...but he didn't play --ClubOranje^T 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, let me see if I follow your argument: I don't buy the GNG argument because he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. Now, this is interesting, because you don't seem to realise that WP:GNG and WP:BIO are alternatives. The quote you used comes from WP:BIO, and I agree that Raheem probably doesn't meet that standard. However, the line above that sentence in WP:BIO reads, "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
  So remind me again in what way this person doesn't meet the GNG? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To my mind there is nothing but routine coverage and tabloid sports journalism by sports journo's hoping to uncover the next Rooney. Most of it is speculative and trivial; yes, he could have been the youngest Liverpool player...but he didn't play. I believe WP to be an encyclopedia, not a readers digest type summary of newspaper sports section. The kid has done nothing worthy of note.--ClubOranje^T 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  None of that is germane to my point above but whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - footballer fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:GNG, sources provided are fairly WP:ROUTINE and fail WP:NOTNEWS of which an event that didn't even happen. --Jimbo^[online] 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are multiple sources given (from multiple countries yet) with articles that are about specifically this person. Those are hardly routine. As such, regardless of his accomplishments or lack thereof on the field, he easily meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way? The two different countries from which the references come are Jamaica (his country of birth) and the UK (the country in which he works). Furthermore, the fact that he gets mentioned in Jamaica is further diluted by the fact that he hasn't lived there since he was (at most) 9 years old. So tell me again, what exactly has Raheem Sterling done in his career that satisfies WP:GNG. – PeeJay 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that there was a reference from the Los Angeles Times in the article at the start of this AfD, but it was removed because it was a dead link. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is covered in significant detail by reliable sources and thus meets WP:GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NSOCCER, however clearly meets WP:GNG. For those above who doubt the sources exist have a read of : Boy wonder Sterling has cast a spell on Dalglish at Liverpool (dailymail.co.uk) or Raheem Sterling in line to become Liverpool's youngest player (independent.co.uk) or Gunners to sign English wonderkid givemefootball.com the fist two clearly independent of the sport. In answer to those who believe that WP:ATHLETE trumps WP:GNG - read WP:CONLIMITED, the community wide consensus is that if you pass WP:GNG then you (with some exceptions) qualify for an article, a smaller group can not override that to suit there aims. Mtking (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Has the subject of this article achieved anything of note on the field of play? No. Has the subject achieved anything of note off the field (in football or in any other area)? No. Despite this, does the fact that a few journalists have written about him automatically make him notable anyway? No. The general notability guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list... "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine) I believe that, at this point in time, Raheem Sterling falls into this category of exceptions. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:53, 28 April 2011 (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.