Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Sterling


 * 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 Non-notable Athlete fails WP:ATHLETEMike Cline (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Raheem Sterling

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not played a professional match, so non-notable Soleil levant (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has significant coverage in the Mail Online, London Evening Standard and BBC, among others. EuroPride (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Player for the youth team of a Premier League Club, Wide Media Coverage also. DharmaDreamer (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Player for a YOUTH TEAM is certainly not notable. Scant media coverage: all sources are either transfer speculation or unreliable sources (e.g. goal.com). Media coverage on his transfer to Liverpool is pretty much the only thing you can find as sources: clearly not significant coverage.Craddocktm (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Didn't you already agree with the deletion proposal above? He is given significant coverage in the BBC, Daily Mail and London Evening Standard. Significant coverage in mainstream media is enough to pass WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you seriously consider the coverage as "significant"? The only coverage on him is about his transfer to Liverpool, which is highly trivial in nature. Unless there is coverage on other aspects of his career, he is not significant enough. Regarding the criteria for sportsmen, see ATH. He is not competing at professional level nor has he competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.I reckon he does not deserve his own article until he has signed a professional contract and appeared for the first team. Craddocktm (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - footballer who hasn't made it. fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league, only youth appearances, nor has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. Fails WP:GNG as there is nothing but routine coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. per WP:NOT. -- Club Oranje T 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with ClubOranje that the media items argued to make him notable fail WP:NOTNEWS and aren't significant to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Player does not pass notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE, so deletion is appropriate per WP:ONEEVENT. – PeeJay 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per PeeJay.  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability guideline. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Player fails ATHLETE and NTEMP -- Big  Dom  19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As already stated, this player fails WP:ATHLETE, and the sources provided are insufficient to establish notability.  Bettia  (talk)  12:48, 16 March 2010 (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.