Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benik Afobe

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. As the last comment points out, sources are insufficient to meet GNG (and certainly doesn't meet WP:ATH for what that's worth). Userfied. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benik Afobe[edit]

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

A contested WP:PROD, the article is about a 17-year old reserve player of Arsenal with no first team appearances to date, and only appearances with the English U-17 side, which are definitely not enough to ensure notability. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH. Angelo (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE having not played at a fully-professional level of football yet. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. --Jimbo^[online] 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, without fully professional appearances or significant covergage this player clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, recreate if/when player becomes notable. Giant Snowman 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who fails Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG and recreate if he does become notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty sure he passes the WP:GNG, I think WP:ATHLETE is totally discredited so I give no weight to what it says. If it's deleted you can userfy to me, as I deprodded it. Fences&Windows 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATH is a guideline that gives rise to a presumption of notability. Applying it in that way, we can deal with its deficiencies. This guy is a reserve player for one of the biggest clubs in the world and has received a long list of international youth caps. There is a good amount of coverage such that I agree he probably makes it past the GNG.[1] Arbitrary notability guidelines can be helpful, but on occasions we need to be overlay them with a bit of discretion and common sense. This such a case. Other cases are for athletes who technically meet WP:ATH but are plainly not notable and have received minimal to no coverage. It goes both ways. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his sporting appearances alone shouldn't count towards automatic notability, but I think there's enough coverage in GNews to push him over the notability theshold by a convincing margin. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is someone possibly willing to show me such reliable, independent, third-party sources covering the subject in sufficient detail? All I can see is just six sources in the article: three are not independent (The FA and Arsenal FC, respectively), one is not coming from a reliable source and is not really covering the subject in detail (Goal.com), one comes from a blog and does not cover the subject in detail as well (The Guardian), the last one is a mere chronicle of a U-17 game. If these sources establish notability, then 80-90% of 15-year old guys playing for Arsenal might be notable on their own (seriously). --Angelo (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2010 (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.