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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Dhanda[edit]

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

Deleted by PROD before, fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the player represents clear significance in that he is only the second player of Indian heritage to sign a professional contract in for a Premier League club, and that he is the first to do so for Liverpool FC, a major club. The lack of South Asian professional footballers is a much-debated topic, hence these articles by the Independent, Channel 4, the Guardian and the BBC. Furthermore, when Dhanda signed the contract, news organisations such as the Daily Mail, BBC and the Metro covered the story highlighting the fact of his heritage and it's implications for the South Asian community. With national news coverage of his recent contract, it shows a clear public interest in with regards to professional footballers of South Asian heritage and as such I feel it is clear that he is of cultural significance and thus worthy of a Wikipedia article. (Rcp8690 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Asian footballers in Britain may be a significant topic, but the first four sources do not discuss this specific player in detail. The remaining sources you provide are simply routine transfer talk, which is generally considered insufficient for GNG as it allows little to be said about the player other than he has signed for the club. This is the problem in a nutshell, yes the player has signed for a premier league team, but he hasn't actually played any football at a significant level yet. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangentially related note, I notice that the article claims that Neil Taylor was the only previous player of Indian heritage in the Premier League, yet our article on Michael Chopra says that he was the first player of Indian heritage in the Premier League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's meant to be talking about current players (but poorly worded). Spiderone 11:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I agree with Fenix down's comment, the subject if the article should be independently notable. The articles on Neil Taylor and Michael Chopra where created because they play professionally, not because of their heritage. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite recent coverage of this player in the national press it is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Seasider91 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know none of those original sources mention Dhanda, but as the stories are about a lack of South Asian professional footballers, it can hardly be expected that he should be mentioned, as he wasn't a professional footballer at the time. And while those recent stories may just be 'routine transfer talk', the Mail and BBC ones both make specific reference to his heritage and it's significance, highlighting that his signing of a professional contract with a Premier League team is not only important, but is near enough unique – when you consider the amount of footballers to play in the Premier League, and how only he, Neil Taylor and (after a bit of research, indeed), Michael Chopra (think Neil Taylor's article needs to be updated?), have Indian parentage, it's incredibly rare. Especially when it includes – not just people who have played but out of everyone to hold a professional contract – it must be thousands of footballers. Also, if a footballer like Jake Brimmer has a page, he has achieved nothing greater than Dhanda. Both U17 players, both at Liverpool, but one does have the page and one doesn't. (Rcp8690 (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your argument doesn't really make sense. What you seem to be saying is that if player of nationality "x" signs for a club of nationality "y" where "x" is rare within "y" as a player's nationality, that without even playing for a club the player is inherently notable. What is needed are sources that discuss the player in detail, particularly when he is just a hot prospect who has never even played. I would also note your comparison with Brimmer is flawed. Firstly Brimmer went to AfD as well, but the result was no consensus, so there is not an agreement to keep. however, in this instance, there were a number of sources indicating widespread non-routine international coverage of the player. If you can show similar sources for Dhanda then I am happy to reconsider my position. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- If it were not for his ethnic heritage, I would have no doubt about voting to delete as would clearly not yet be notable: U18 players, even at a national level are generally NN. In view of the death of South Asian football players, we should possibly make an exception here, since he is only the second to be signed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually at least the third (see discussion above)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG requires detailed discussion of the player and this has not happened in the sources provided. Spiderone 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Clearly fails NFOOTY. Although I was guilty of the same thing in the past, creating articles simply because of the ethnic origin of their subjects does not make them notable. Also there are very few sources with the exception of one that clearly mention his Indian heritage in depth. Faiq Jefri Bolkiah is the first Bruneian to be part of a premier league academy but that doesn't make him notable does it? Article can be recreated if the subjected meets WP:GNG in the future. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have different rules for people of different racial backgrounds. That would be by definition prejudicial. Does the subject meet WP:GNG? That should be the only question in play. Mkdw ^talk 05:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as per Inter&anthro. Interesting story, though. Notability will probably be achieved in the future. JTtheOG (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the mention of the first Bruneian in the Premier League academy, I counter by asking has the lack of Bruneians been a consistent feature of football reporting for the last 15 years? Mainstream press and television have consistently investigated over that time why 10% of the British population is so underrepresented in football. Yan Dhanda is not becoming the first person from that sector to sign professionally for (insert League Two team here), but for the 18-time English and 5-time European champions. Dhanda's story is not going unnoticed in India, see here for example. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't right the wrongs of the mainstream media by adjusting our notability guidelines. We require significant coverage and if there are other factors that prevent an individual from having significant coverage, then it is not on Wikipedia that this will be remedied. Mkdw ^talk 02:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Player is signed to a development league. Press coverage must meet WP:NTEMP. Blue Riband► 15:01, 1 January 2016 (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.