Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.103.34.38 (talk) at 09:29, 18 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:29, 18 June 2009 by 173.103.34.38 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton

Procedural nomination, PROD disputed with rationale "is in the 1st team squad of a current Premier Lge team and can be expected to play senior football for a League team shortly" (which falls under WP:CRYSTAL as there is never any guarantee that he would). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his debut at a fully professional level - if this article was deleted and he then does make his debut, this article could easily be recreated by an administrator. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Keeping it on the basis that he might make an appearance in a fully-pro competition violates WP:CRYSTAL. Other than that, also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of verifiable references. --Jimbo 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. – Pee Jay 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete - on the basis that he hasn't yet made an appearance at a professional league. (If he does make an appearance, then the page can easily be recreated.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I' 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep, player is generating a lot of interest on the net (e.g. when he was loaned to Bristol Rovers), perhaps not surprising as is he is in the first-team squad of a Premier League team, and thus has general notability. Eldumpo (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not fame nor importance. It is in depth coverage by multiple independent published works by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Your rationale fails to demonstrate that. The article itself fails to demonstrate it, too. Cite some sources to do so, if you want to make an argument that actually holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep, while not having appeared in a first team match, he has been named to the subs bench on numerous occasions, which would make him pass WP:ATHLETE since one is still paid when they are named to the subs bench. He also has over 3000 Google hits including a profile page on all of the major football sites which would appear to establish notability. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Google hits don't confer notability. --Jimbo 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment That page states "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number" and if one checks those hits, many of them are from major football sites and given this player's unique name, they are all surely about him and not someone else with the same name. Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment - all of his Google News hits appear to involve his 1-month loan signing with Bristol Rovers, or the 1-month extension of the loan. There is no indication of his achievments or notability outside of signing with a professional club. I don't think that's significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes one gets paid if on the bench, but one also gets paid if not on the bench if one is a contracted football player. But then again, one also gets paid to deliver parcels if working for a courier company, make sandwiches if working for a sandwich bar...Its not about getting paid, it is about notability. Filter you ghits for non-blog, facebook etc, drop out the match reports where he is named as a substitute and other passing mentions and you find he has not done a whole lot of note - as yet. for those arguing hi will be notable soon...what is the hurry? this is not his resumè page. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment The above is a strawman considering that "fully professional" is frequently cited as a criterion of WP:ATHLETE, hence whether or not he is paid is relevant. There's no such professional criterion regarding sandwich makers. 70.4.243.55 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment WP:ATHLETE states that he must have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - paid or not, he hasn't competed at the required fully-pro level. --Jimbo 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Claims of "he'll play sooner or later" are blatant violations of WP:CRYSTAL. --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues lists English League 1, where he has been listed on the sub bench, as a "fully professional league." The arrogant Misplaced Pages admin commenting above me has claimed the above list as gospel so why in the world would he claim a player who's been a sub in English League 1, a "fully professional league," would not be "fully professional???" 173.103.34.38 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: