Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Bouzanis


 * 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 keep. Both sides make very good arguments. These articles are usually deleted (and I have supported such deletions in the past). However, there certainly are exceptions; O.J. Mayo comes immediately to mind (apologies to non-Americans). This seems to be one of those times, as there unquestionably has been significant coverage of this young keeper in the media. And, most importantly, there are twice as many keep arguments here than delete arguments. faithless  (speak)  10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dean Bouzanis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD: Non-notable youth footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has never played at professional level, (youth caps do not confer notability) English   peasant  00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets the base requirements in the notability guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage" and the article is well sourced.  Gtstricky Talk or C 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English   peasant  00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article could be deleted on a technicality.  But be realistic - this is a non-stub, well written, well referenced article, about a professional footballer who just happened to have not yet reached our (completely arbitrary) standards.  A perfect example of where Ignore all rules applies.  Do you really think that someone who has played one match for the New Zealand Knights FC is more notable than Bouzanis? -- Chuq (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article quite clearly passes WP:BIO, through having many reliable independent sources. John Hayestalk 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well referenced, well developed article. This, as Chuq said, could be deleted as a technicality, but I think this article may be good enough to keep. jon ( blab ) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Canley (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is very well-referenced, and that should trump the professional league "rule". --Canley (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The presence of multiple reliable sources supercedes the fact that he seems to fail WP:FOOTY. This is definitely a WP:IAR case per Chuq. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: for privacy reasons I think we should avoid articles about living people under the age of 18.  However, according to the article he turns 18 in October of this year. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the sentiment and it's certainly a noble one, but I don't think that should factor in to this. They are choosing a life in the public eye, and if they choose that before they turn 18, then so be it. There will be coverage of it. It's not like Wikipedia will generate new coverage, it'll just compile and amalgamate from the coverage already in existence. matt91486 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If his career was to end tomorrow, we would be left with an article about someone who has never played a competitive match for a senior team. Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. WP:CRYSTAL applies here.  If the player goes on to make a league appearance for Liverpool, or any other team that plays in a fully professional league, then the article can be recreated.  If people waited until players became notable before creating the articles, then this process wouldn't be necessary.  The notability line has to be set somewhere.  Yes, it is completely arbitrary, but it has also been established through debate and consensus by the Wikipedia community.  For the moment, this player has not passed that line, and we should not assume that he will.  robwingfield «T•C» 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete How can sportsmen who've never made a senior appearance be notable? The ignore all rules argument applies to the secondary sources which mention him, they do not confer notability. Nick mallory (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Keep (more sources found) - only one unquestionably reliable and independent source . I'm not sure if it establishes notability on its own but there might be more out there. Guest9999 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However whatever the outcome, not meeting with a Wikiproject's essay should not be a criteria for deletion when there is a consensus formed guideline that deals with the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FOOTY/Notability was formed by consensus between members of WP:FOOTY over a 4 month period. It was WP:BIO people that imediately set about undermining it to preserve the status quo. This guy is unquestionable non-notable as a footballer, the only things saving him are 1) the fact he's from the English speaking world playing for an English speaking club, 2) a poor collection of links 3) a picture. The article can be recreated at the click of a button if he ever does play professional football. A breakdown of the poor quality external links 1) summary: Non-notable footballer joins big club, 2) Link actually states how non-notable the player is ("who will effectively not play for the first team") 3) Seems to be broken-link, 4)Total Bouzanis content = "Dean Bouzanis", 5)Total Bouzanis content = "Young keepers Justin Pasfield and Dean Bouzanis were back-ups to Bolton over the last two years" (non-notable achievement), 7) Broken link, 9) "Dean Bouzanis g/k (New South Wales)," named in Australia U-17 squad, (a mile off meeting WP:ATHLETE ot FOOTYN). 10+11) non-english sites. If this article is kept it will just encourage more editors to create articles on non-notable footballers to clutter up categories they shouldn't even be in, having never come close to playing for the first team. And as for the links there are probably hundreds of potential links about Romeo Beckham and Enzo Zidane, do we think articles about them should be kept if the list of externallinks is big enough? English   peasant  21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like this trend of holding non-English sites against people. matt91486 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really holding it against anyone, Its just very difficult to tell whether the sources contain any valid information because I don't read Greek. Most of the other sources are rubbish, the bottom 2 are unintelligible to me (and to most other people on en:wikipedia I guess). Anyhow I think that it is fair that EL should be taken into consideration when citing external links as the main reason for saving an article from deletion in opposition to the WP:ATHLETE & WP:FOOTYN guidelines. English   peasant  00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not take WP:FOOTY/Notability to WT:BIO and see if there is a consensus to incorportate it. As it is it's just a Wikiproject essay that contradicts an official guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate when he makes an appearance Ban  Ray  22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. I could look the other way if the sources provided were more than trivial mentions (as per User:English peasant above), but there does not appear to be the sort of substantial coverage I would expect if this chap were truly notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC). Change to Keep based on comments below.  Acceptable amount of indepedent secondary coverage.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
 * I would again like to just point out this profile (used in the article) from The Sydney Morning Herald which according to our article is "the oldest continuously-published newspaper in Australia." with a circulation in the houndreds of thousands. Seems to be a decent source with a reasonable depth of coverage, it might be the case that there are more like it out there. Guest9999 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Found another decent looking source detailing the player - from The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Guest9999 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are another couple of sources I don't think are currently being used in the article - from Setanta Sports and Fox Sports (Australia). Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another source, this one from The Age (daily circulation over 100,000). Guest9999 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Fair enough. Go and add them into the article and I'll switch my !vote.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
 * I've added the references and some information into the article, I don't have much experience with article writing and know very little about the ins and outs of Australian/UK/Greek footballing arrangements so I'm sure they could be put to better use. Other sources found unclude but I'm not sure if they can be considered reliable. Guest9999 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - still no league appearances and no full international caps = not notable according to WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO which gives "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject" as a base criteria. Saying that all professional athletes are notable should not automatically mean that all non-proffesional athletes are not. Guest9999 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of which are guidelines, not policies. Consensus has been established that footballers are notable if they've made an appearance in a fully professional league.  You're honestly saying that a footballer who's never played football is notable?!  WP:CRYSTAL.  robwingfield «T•C» 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He has played football - he's played for both The Australian and Greek national teams at junior levels (U17 and U19). However I would say his main assertion of notability - the reason he has been covered by reliable sources - is the fact that he is a promising player who (at this stage) could potentially play for for one of two national sides. This has generated interest in both of the nations involved and caused there to be significant coverage of the player in the mainstream press (examples given above and in the article). To me the objective evidence means more than an arbitrary standard of having played one match. Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, playing youth football at any level (other than Olympic games) is not an assertion of notability. The only potentially valid claim for notability here seems to be that the sports press have written about him. His sporting achievements are way below the standard set by consensus at WP:FOOTYN and even further below WP:ATHLETE. Press attention does not equal notability, there are plenty of independent news items about Brooklyn Beckam & David Banda, but they do not and should not have articles. English   peasant  20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The press about Brooklyn Beckham and David Banda came about because of the notable people they are associated with and information on them is included in the articles on those people. The press about Dean Bouzanis is about him, not in reference to anyone else. Guest9999 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:N easily. Assize (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No fully pro appearances means non-notable--Egghead06 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no pro appearances hence does not meet WP:BIO notability. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The base criteria set out in WP:BIO is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". It also says that failure to meet with the aditional criteria (such as those set out in WP:ATHLETE) "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Guest9999 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the evidence of reliable, independent secondary sources, then I believe it meets notability criteria of WP:BIO which in this case overrides the narrower requirements of WP:ATHLETE Murtoa (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN, which, believe me or not, are very inclusive criterions. --Angelo (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep His St George stats are unknown. He plays for Liverpool reserves, has made great strides at International level. Has multiple articles written about him that override any notability issues. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first three things you mention are non-notable, unknown stats do not assert notability, playing reserve level football neither, he has not played at full international level or at the Olympics so he is also not notable as an international footballer. Citing these things makes it look like there are a list of things making him notable, when in actual fact all there is are a bunch of external links, most of them broken or rubbish. The ones that are not broken or rubbish document his non-notable achievements in football. I'm sure it is possible to find enough links in order to keep a vast number of non-notable people if we are prepared to spend long enough trawling the internet for them. The press often write about people that fail our inclusion criteria. This AfD seems to be boiling down to a debate over whether having a number of sports journalists write about a person makes them notable. English   peasant  08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - So notability takes into account the quality of works by sports journalists. I was unaware of this, and press for immediate deletion. It is rated as start through Australian fields, it has nationalistic aspects beyond him being just a professional footballer. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes, and I would say it does. John Hayestalk 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the "keep" !voters appear to accept that this young man has achieved nothing of note in football but believe he should be kept because major news outlets have talked about him. How's that different from the case of Rhain Davis, the 9-year old Man U signing, who was all over the news for a short time last year but had his WP article deleted because he had achieved nothing of note in football......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As one of those !voters all I can say to that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I accept that it doesn't pass our football rules, I'm just following WP:BIO. In terms of a personal feeling of why it shpuld be kept, is that coming from a country such as Australia, he is much higher profile there, just for having moved to Liverpool, than he is here (where he is just another reserve player). It was similar for someone like Harry Kewell where there was a lot of media exposure (in Australia) before he had played a game for Leeds (though that is of course WP:OR). John Hayestalk 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As another proponent I would just like to comment that the reliable press coverage covers a period of over a year. Example (Febuary 2007)  (March 2008). Guest9999 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reading through a number of sources he has been the topic of much debate in Australia over nationality, history, parentage, etc. Beyond that being a high-profile goalkeeper for one of the world's biggest clubs at 17 and playing age-group internationals well above his own age-bracket. Londo  06  16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree his Liverpool career does not make him notable, but the loan spell to Sydney FC was as a professional player in the club's first team. While he was at St George Saints, the club was in the NSW Premier League which is the second tier of Australian football and for a time in 2004/5 was the top tier while the national league was in recess.  - Tomperc (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article, as it is currently, does not assert that any appearances were made for either team. If appearances were made for Sydney FC, then that would definitely make Bouzanis notable, and render irrelevant any argument about whether being a reserve player with no professional appearances makes someone notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  If you can provide a source which states this, please add to the article.  Is the NSW Premier League fully professional?  If not, then it can't be stated that it was the top tier of Australian football simply because the A league season had ended!  robwingfield «T•C» 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - His Liverpool coach has publicly stated him to be the best Under 18 Keeper in the world and there is currently a debate as to whether he will play for the Australian or Greek national teams. He is definitely notable due to his appearance in newspapers and radio as speculation about his future unlike any other youth player. His achievements are notable for an Australian player and on an Australian only wiki, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Lympathy (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, The main criteria at WP:BIO is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There appears to no dispute here that this article meets this criteria. The athlete additional criteria on BIO does not supersede this as BIO states that ref the additional criteria "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Davewild (talk) 08:53, 7 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.