- 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Sowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a fully pro club, and that he will make his debut soon. However, speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sowers is notable for his performance on his College team. Instrumental in Rollins Final 4 Appearance in 2010. See Final Four, coverage outside of Florida, following year. And signing was covered by media (i.e. not just in press release from club) 13news for example. So although he does not yet meet Association Football's specific standards, he meets GNG as having significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of him and Orlando City. --Trödel 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer news, even from independent sources, and match reports are routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The general notability guideline, which this person seems to pass based on the ghits I'm seeing, trumps WP:NFOOTBALL. However, he is known for nothing other than being a football player. Procedurally, I can't !vote keep on an article about an athlete bio that fails to qualify the notability guidelines for inclusion of athlete bios. In my opinion WP:GNG is often misused that way. Perhaps this is a good example of WP:TOOSOON, so maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta say I disagree with your reasoning: Footballers can easily be notable per GNG, without passing NFOOTBALL, even if the coverage is only about their footballing career. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, an article about a footballer that fails to be a footballer? I mean, even if he scrapes by WP:GNG what's the point of the bio? If anything it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but either way, it should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog
- I gotta say I disagree with your reasoning: Footballers can easily be notable per GNG, without passing NFOOTBALL, even if the coverage is only about their footballing career. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deñete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ṞṈ™ 22:41, 3 December 2012 (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.