Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso (3rd nomination)

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 Subject of this article has yet to play a professional game. As mentioned below having a squad number for a professional team and still not actually playing is not enough to pass notability. Most of the keep arguements below rely far too heavily on crystal balling. -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Delfouneso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

3rd nomination for deletion. The player fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and has been deleted twice before, he is yet to play football at professional level English peasant 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct he has been deleted twice before, when he was just a reserve team player without a professional contract. Things have changed since the last two deletions. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. English peasant 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike in the previous AFDs, Delfouneso has signed up for the top Aston Villa A-team, and must therefore be counted as a professional football player. A Google News search shows that this player has a lot of media attention, and passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has he? Currently he fails the new WP:FOOTY/Notability criteria, and I don't see any sources in the article which cause him to pass the base criteria. John Hayes^talk 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment most of the comments from the previous AfDs stated something like "re-create only if and when he makes a first-team appearance for a fully-professional club". Delfouneso has yet to appear for the Aston Villa first team, simply having a squad number does not confer notability. English peasant 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also important to note that the WP:Football crtieria have been essentially invalidated by deletion review discussion. But anyway, I'm going to refrain from stating any further opinion in this matter, because I'm pretty sure my being a Villa fan will taint my judgment. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above. John Hayes^talk 13:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - It seems silly to delete a page which will be put back up in a matter of days. Delfouneso is part of the Aston Villa first team set-up, and will feature for the club in the near future, even, if he comes on for the last two minutes of a game, that alone will warrant the article. Deleting now seems very silly... come on guys, lets try to use a bit of common sense. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point may seem like common sense but it ultimately relies on WP:CRYSTALEnglish peasant 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, I'm sick of someone answering me with WP:CRYSTAL!, lets be honest here, you know I'm right whether I'm Mystic Meg or not! Jonesy702 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I have no insight into whether you're right or not. I prefer to assume it's unlikely (but by no means impossible) that a 17-year old is ready to break into one of the better teams in the Premiership just yet. If he does, or if he goes on loan and gets games elsewhere, fine. He's just not really ready for an article yet. - fchd (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if he hasn't played, he isn't notable. - fchd (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A lot of effort has clearly been put into creating this article. The player has a squad number and a professional contract with a top football club. How about using common sense and keeping this article up rather than doggedly following the rules. Deleting will just mean that the article will have to be remade (and possibly not as well) in a few weeks time. Patience my friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crankycletus (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article needs to be reinstated at a later date that can be done via DRV. "It might need to be recreated later" is not a reason to keep an article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FOOTY/Notability BanRay 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mas 18 dl (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for a couple of weeks to give him a chance to play and so become notable. As was said earlier, it seems daft to delete it only to put it back on. Yes, it was a bit premature putting it up, but it is here now, and I think deleting it (apart from anything else) is likely to create a bit of bad feeling. Isn't there an instruction about breaking the rules? StephenBuxton (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - Ignore the rules StephenBuxton (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is nothing to indicate that this player is likely to make his debut in the next couple of weeks ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just chose two weeks as an arbitary figure. Having an AFD for too long is not going to be productive, but a 5 day debate may not be long enough to see if he gets to play in a notable game, and so become noteworthy. As I mentioned before, deleting this article may be a bit premature, and a lot of work has gone into it. It stands a good chance of qualifying soon, so to delete it and then have it recreated is going to make for a lot of extra work, and might create a bit of ill-feeling towards Wikipedia. Original author User:Jonaldinho2004 hasn't been on Wikipedia that long, and is trying to be a good Wikipedian. In this instance, I think bending the rules is a good thing. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned elsewhere in this debate, if the article is deleted and then needs to be recreated later the most recent version can be re-instated by an admin with about two mouse clicks, hardly "a lot of extra work"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Jonaldinho2004 made their first edit nearly two years ago, although I don't see the relevance. Many well-established and respected editors have had early articles deleted, it's part of the learning process. Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my mistake about the first edit. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral While a strict interpretation of the rules say the page should go, I'm tempted to bend them in this case. It seems a bit silly to delete a page that will be valid and back up not too many weeks from now. Alberon (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody can guarantee that the article "will be valid and back up not too many weeks from now" - what if Mr Delfouneso suffers a career-ending injury playing for the reserve team....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just realised I haven't actually !voted yet. Needless to say I !vote delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sjakkalle. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there were a 7 man bench he may well have made more appearances, as it stands he has been the 'odd man out' or '12th man' on numerous occasions, just missing the cut. He is a Villa player, with a professional contract, who has a good article about a player that has achieved notoriety for England throughout the age-ranges and for Aston Villa reserves. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears that plenty of thought and effort went into FOOTY/Notability and the subject doesn't qualify at this time. Similarly, he doesn't appear to qualify under the basic notability criteria. I'm unpersuaded by the agruments that he will be notable in a few moments because, as others have stated:

1. We have no way of knowing what will happen in the future and

2. the article can be restored in momments by an admin, or someone can save a copy in user space, and improve the article with information that establishes notability when available. I'm actually more concerned about undermining the new project notability guidelines by declining to apply them than I am worried about the work that's gone into the article. Xymmax (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete already nominated and deleted twice, and nothing significant has happened since then. He fails all the related guidelines around, namely WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability. Next time please recreate it (or ask for a restoration) only after he actually played a professional match. --Angelo (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep till end of season to see if he progresses with Villa, especially with the departure of Luke Moore. A quick google news search will supply notability junkies with reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that WP:N#Notability is not temporary states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is fine. The same cannot be said for a number of notability guidelines. Catchpole (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the wrong place where to criticize current guidelines. If you don't like them, please propose changes in the right place. --Angelo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has been established on many previous occasions that a player with a squad number in a top tier league (I think we can all agree that the EPL is a top tier league) is notable, at the very least during the season in which he has a squad number. ugen64 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was established very recently in the cases of Liverpool F.C. young players Mikel San José, Jay Spearing, Ray Putterill and Ryan Flynn that having a squad number for a big club without actually playing for them was not enough to confer notability. Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to let note the closing admin we have a number of notability and behavioural guidelines they should be considered before taking a decision. This is not a vote, and every single user's opinion should comply with our current written rules. --Angelo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. The article even implies he hasn't yet been on the bench for league match. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This guy has a professional contract at a PL club, has achieved notoriety for England and has had numureous articles written about him. No9shirt (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User's second and currently last edit (the first being not exactly a valuable contribution [1]) --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why am I being watched Mr Romano. Wikipedia is a strange place to put stuff. No9shirt (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it's a fact more recent users usually do not have a thorough knowledge of notability guidelines (in fact, you did not refer it), and this is not a vote. --Angelo (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. With all due respect Angelo, you should look at the argument No9shirt is making and not try to cloud it with reference to his earlier (admittedly invaluable) edit. I think No9shirt has a valid point similar to the basic criteria of WP:N. At least it's not blatant lack of "thorough knowledge of notability guidelines" as you suggest. Discussions like this should be about the issues and not the persons. Sebisthlm (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have achieved as much for the English team that he can achieve at that level. He has apparently had articles written about him, so for me it's a keeper. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2008 (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.