Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Johnson (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. Courcelles 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Johnson (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having never actually played for Aston Villa, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some limited coverage of this footballer exists, the nominator fails to mention that for the last two weeks the guy has been on the subs bench and it only a matter of time before this person does meet the above criteria.VER Tott 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure Crystal Ball gazing. Sitting on the bench does not qualify him to pass WP:ATHLETE; only actually playing in the first team does. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus "limited coverage" is not the same as the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires...Giant Snowman 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS, and a Google News search I performed found no evidence of the coverage about him that was referred to above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- This source [1] states that Johnson is the captain of Aston Villa's youth team. I do not know if that confers any notability. I suspect not. Reyk _YO! 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:ATHLETE currently (youth player for Aston Villa explicitly does not count), and as the relevant section of that only says that "players who have appeared ... in a fully-professional league ... will generally be regarded as notable" (my emphasis), I would suggest that it would take more than a single appearance to conclude that he is definitely notable under that criteria. No non-trivial, non-WP:NOTNEWS coverage, so no WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSPORTS. No prejudice against re-creation of the article if this guy plays in a few games and gets some coverage. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've said it many times, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because this kid has been named on the subs bench a few times recently definitely doesn't mean that he will necessarily ever take the field, which is a requirement for notability. – Pee Jay 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small point, taking the field is not a requirement for notability - meeting the notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources is. Taking the field lets us make the assumption that significant coverage could be found, but not taking the field doesn't mean that can't happen anyway. Camw (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the future he will probably play 1st team football. Until he does, he is just another youth team player--Egghead06 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any significant coverage to meet notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The basic facts about this person seem well established and I see coverage at national level such as The Guardian. Perhaps the article should be merged into Aston Villa or some sub-article/list so that the edit history is not lost, per our editing policy. Deletion and recreation of the article would be a pointless chore contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aston Villa have been around for nearly 150 years and have had over 1000 players. Merging the biography of a kid from the youth team who's never even played for the senior team into the main club article would be the most ridiculous WP:UNDUE violation ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the topic is large then we merge into a suitable sub-article, as I suggested. I know little about this club but had no difficulty in finding List of Aston Villa F.C. players which seems quite appropriate. The point is that our policy is to be constructive not destructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ........except that he's never played for Aston Villa, only for their affiliated youth team. That list starts with "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club", whereas he has played zero first-class matches. Would you have it changed to "This is a list of its notable players, generally this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club, plus Daniel Johnson".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That figure of 100 seems quite arbitrary and so I would indeed discard it. The list would be better as a sortable list with the number of appearances as a column so that readers could form their own idea as to the threshold, rather than it being forced upon them. And, now I check, I find that this has sensibly been done already and that the list includes players whose appearances are 26 or "n/a". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A whopping great five players with fewer than 100 appearances are included on the grounds that they made a significant contribution to the club's history (club record holder, trophy-winning captain, etc). I don't think you'll find too much support for including a teenager who's kept the sub's bench warm once under that criterion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room enough to place this developing article in a pending state. The person in question is captain of the youth team and has now been selected for the main club roster which are no mean achievements. This seems quite adequate to support retention of the article as a redirect for now, awaiting further developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That same policy also contains WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so we do not need to provide information on every (potential) player, no matter how obscure. And there is no indication that WP:PAPER is meant to trump WP:ATHLETE (which this article clearly fails). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:PAPER and WP:PRESERVE certainly trump WP:ATHLETE, being policies rather than guideline. And the issue here is not whether there is space for a full article but whether there is a space for an an entry in a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that WP:NOT at WP:IINFO explicitly references WP:NOTE (and by implication WP:ATHLETE), and then states "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This would certainly suggest that something that does not meet notability guidelines is not suitable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ He has played on this team. [2] One of the results mentions him playing, not just being on the team[3]. Playing on a professional team makes you notable. WP:NSOCCER Every member of this team has an article about them, some about as young as him. I don't see anywhere saying there are two different teams either. 18 is old enough to play professional. Dream Focus 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All those links clearly state in the titles that they refer to matches played by clubs' reserve teams. The second starts "Crystal Palace reserves finished their season in third place of the Totesport.com Combination League, after a 2-2 draw with QPR yesterday. The Eagles' second-string twice came from behind to secure a point". A club's reserve team is not fully professional, and has never been considered sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that's for clearing that up. I had no idea since I'm not a sports person. Withdrawing my keep then. Do they get television coverages for these types of things? Do they get coverage in any magazines? Dream Focus 13:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No would be the quick answer there. I live in Birmingham and am pretty sure I have never seen any press coverage of Aston Villa or Birmingham City's reserve team games. Even the scores aren't usually reported -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG (someone above claimed that he was the subject of coverage in The Guardian, but the only mention of him I could find on their website was one throw-away sentence in a match report about how he'd been on the sub's bench but never entered play.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played highest professional level. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus is very clear here that WP:ATHLETE is not met but Colonel Warden brings on his usual policy but no evidence of notability argument of WP needing to be constructive or improved rather than addressing how the subject meets an established notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 22 November 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.