Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Cann (2nd 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. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, of which there were three, two are extraordinarily trivial mentions (one just lists him as a member of a team along with all of the other members, the other just lists him as one of three other players to leave a team after the entire article specifically discusses two other prominent players -- both offer no critical commentary), and one just says he was picked up by a team as its newest rookie, and has a brief quote from the subject of his opinion on it. The latter is boderline, but hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Cann

Steven Cann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria with multiple, reliable, independent sources. John Hayes^talk 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Youth caps don't count....apparently--Egghead06 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE,the article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. As for the links, one is a BBC link that where he shares a sentence with another jetisoned youth player, another documents his participation in an event which does not confer notability (Milk Cup) and the Soccerbase link is just a row of Zeros. That leaves the BBC source that documents his joining Rotherham, an event which, in itself is not notable.) English peasant 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets core policies, and a wait and see approach towards articles on youth footballers is preferable. Catchpole (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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.