Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Barkley (footballer)

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. Good argument that he may meet the GNG, but the consensus in this discussion was otherwise, and is not unsupported. I (or as said, virtually any other admin) will restore the article when he makes a professional start, let me know on my talk page as I don't follow the sport. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Barkley (footballer)[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully professional competition - fails WP:NSPORT Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He might not have played a professional game but there are three excellent sources in the article. Comfortably meets the general notability guideline.Franmars (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. surprisingly good sources for a player who hasn't played professionally yet; passes our general notability guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, I think we can all agree on that. WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources", which I don't think this article has. Of the three references currently in the article, this is a run of-the-mill news report about being handed a contract (these kind of stories are ten-a-penny in British media) which arguably fails WP:NTEMP; this is the briefest of mentions alongside four other young players; this is much more in-depth, but in total these three sources aren't enough to demonstrate notability for a seventeen-year-old sportsman who hasn't actually played a first-team game yet! Giant Snowman 05:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. The coverage provided in the article is routine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the AFD template was removed from the article yesterday; it has now been restored. Peter E. James (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GiantSnowman pretty much covered it. This kid has not achieved anything of note, and coverage is all what I would call sports journalism of a general nature. Notable means worthy of note, not just speculated about because a journo has nothing truly notable to write about.--ClubOranje^T 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t argue with the failure of WP:NFOOTBALL, but passing GNG trumps that and I think this is justified by the sources. The Guardian article is pretty basic, but I don’t think WP:NTEMP is relevant. My reading of that guideline is that it only applies if all the sources only cover the subject in the context of a single event, the Independent and Telegraph articles are not just about the contract. I’ve added more sources that cover another ‘event’, his injury during an U-19 England game. WP:ROUTINE could apply, but only to the Guardian article IMO (maybe the Daily Mail article too..). In short, 4 articles in major national newspapers and one in a major local newspaper are enough to convince me that, while he hasn't played a professional game yet, he is already notable. Franmars (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R: Wikipedia is not just a repository for anyone who has had a journalist do a write-up on them. This kid still has done nothing of note. Per WP:NOTDIR "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." This person has no fame, has no special achievement and no notoriety. He is a football player who has not made it to the big time (yet). As for references, #1 speculative general sports journalism (Routine), #2 Routine, every kid that signs a contract with a prem club gets the obligatory paragraph in the paper. #3 Routine per -1, #4 passing mention in article about U-17s, #5 standard profile by primary source, #6 a bit more, but just routine sports journalism about the local boy breaking his leg. #7 per -6, but less because he isn't their local boy.--ClubOranje^T 11:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the references at least indicate that he has "some sort of fame". Indeed, WP:NOTDIR continues from your quote with the statement "One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)", which he obviously has. Also, is WP:ROUTINE even relevant? As far as I can tell that policy is meant to apply to events, not people. Franmars (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has won the European Championship, that is a notable achievement, it won't be long before he makes a start anyway, why can't you just leave the page until he does? There is now a reference on him winning the European Championship. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andel element (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a player achieves at youth level doesn't grant notability, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, but this article has just been released, http://www.followtonians.com/?p=864 it won't be long before barkley makes a first tean appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andel element (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If and when he does, any admin would undelete the article for you in an instant.--ClubOranje^T 00:43, 22 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.