Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Marwood (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   Move to Draft namespace. Nobody called for this to be moved to draft namespace (although some suggested user space) but this seems to me to be an eminently satisfactory solution. The new season opens in just two months and we will then see if he plays his first professional game. Everyone in this debate seems to agree that if that happens WP:FOOTY will have been met and the article can go in mainspace. SpinningSpark 14:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

James Marwood
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying reason for the last deletion still remains. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails still WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Yes he might make his debut in a fully-professional league soon - but he also might not. WP:CRYSTAL applies. GiantSnowman 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the player has now officially signed for a top-flight professional club. There has been national coverage of this on the BBC website. Deleting this article would be pointless as he will be a first team regular for the club. Delete the page now, and it will only be delaying and denying the article its rightful place. Andybud (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "he will be a first team regular for the club" - you can guarantee that......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the player can sign for a top flight club all he wants, but he still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. The keep vote above contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, he appears to have been allocated squad number 10 by St. Mirren, which would indicate that he is more than likely to play for their first team this season. Although it does also appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as above and Userfy to Andybud with instructions to "hold his horses" until after the BBC mentions him playing in a fully professional league game. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG with sources  . Also, even if he didn't meet WP:GNG is there any point wasting everyone's time deleting an article that only get restored in a few weeks. Jmorrison230582 notes that keeping the article violated WP:CRYSTAL, however this is not true. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't allow for future events unless they are almost certain to occur (thus allowing articles such as 2026 FIFA World Cup to exist). Can anyone honestly say they don't think it's almost certain that James Marwood wouldn't be making an appearance for St. Mirren soon?   There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. This article remaining in place for a few weeks does no harm, so let's show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE; if something bizarre happens over the summer, the article can simply go to AFD at that time. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "If something bizarre happens". That means it violates WP:CRYSTAL.  Are we going to have this argument over and over again? – Michael (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you still fail to understand WP:CRYSTAL despite being set straight previously then yes we will have to have this argument over and over again. WP:CRYSTAL requires something to be almost certain - not to be certain. This isn't a 16-year old who may one day play. It's a 24-year old who the team coach has said will be playing, according the references already provided. Procedurely deleting this article for a few weeks is absurd and is a violation of both WP:NORULES and WP:COMMONSENSE.  Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a failure to understand anything here, it is the failure on the part of Nfitz to understand (or at least accept) that their interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is not supported by consensus. Claims to notability of footballers based on potential future appearances have been rejected at afd no less than eighteen times this year alone. The invalidity of this argument remains one of the longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And telling us to wait for a few weeks for something that nobody knows for sure will happen instead of relying on past consensus is a violation of WP:OR. – Michael (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not yet notable. Perhaps the article can be saved in userspace until he becomes notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability today. He may pass it soon, but even in that case this article should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2014 (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.