Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caolan Lavery


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Caolan Lavery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD contested with the rationale "meets GNG", however he doesn't - coverage is not significant, instead it's WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation and the like. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL having failed to make a senior professional or international appearance. GiantSnowman 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be too soon for him to have an article. I can see him having an article in the not-too-distant future, seeing that he is playing for Northern Ireland under-21s, but for now he doesn't pass our notability guidelines for football. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - He has not made any professional appearances so fails WP:NFOOTY; the coverage he has received is not sufficient enough to meet the GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see how he fails WP:GNG considering he has had articles in the Daily Mail and Mirror. Although he may fail NFOOTY that does not ovveride GNG. Still if there is a consensus for deleting then that's fair enough and I will userfy the article. Also GS WP:Routine applies to events not people. WP:1E applies to people who are only notable for one event. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I considered the Daily Mail and Mirror articles to be routine coverage. It all depends on what you consider to be "significant" coverage per the WP:GNG. Yes, WP:Routine is part of the notability guideline for events, but the principle is the same; for people, we have the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO. There, it says that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which seems to cover this situation nicely. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (userfy if Adam4267 wants). Links in article fail to prove notability; he's not notable per WP:FOOTY; and no evidence he's anything other than a run-of-the-mill player. The Telegraph and Argus article is detailed and not routine but that's only one piece of local press. The other articles aren't good enough for notability guidelines: most are very short or not from independent media; and the Scottish Sun article only peripherally mentions him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as stated above, what coverage there is is insufficient to pass WP:GNG, and until he appears in a fully-pro league, this article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Articles in Daily Mail and Mirror are in my opinion only routine coverage of a transfer. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2012 (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.