Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Smith Rowe

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Smith Rowe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge this view, based on WP:GNG. Individual has certainly the required "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". I will add further references to the article. TAG 09:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if and when subject meets requirements listed above. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look at those citations but they are really WP:ROUTINE, no where near enough to satisfy WP:GNG and he clearly fails NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside of the Arsenal.com sources, I would argue that coverage in Sky, Independent and The Times is sufficient to fulfil GNG and I wouldn't say it was ROUTINE as not many youth players get coverage of their contract signings covered by 3rd party sources as he has here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be absurd to delete this. If you do so it's just going to be justifiably recreated within a couple weeks after he fully meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Let's use common sense instead of pointlessly sticking to guidelines. It just causes unnecessary churn. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the need to delete the article of someone who is very likely about to satisfy the NFOOTY requirements. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2018 (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.