Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Sterling (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   no consensus. Fails WP:NFOOTY; disagreement on his WP:GNG status, particularly whether the coverage constitutes "routine sports coverage." King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Raheem Sterling
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:NFOOTY - not played a professional first team competitive match yet for Liverpool/ another club - recreate if/ when he does Zanoni (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in British national tabloid/broadsheet newspapers. 12,000 people looked at this article in one day in Feb. Common sense says keep while policy says delete Francium12  19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; he might not pass WP:NFOOTBALL but significant coverage among large amounts of British press shows he passes WP:GNG. Brad78 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Although he hasn't played professionally in a first team match, it makes more sense to keep this than many articles about sports people with no coverage who played a few minutes of a league match once.--Michig (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As already mentioned, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Routine tabloid sports journalism is not news.  –J10S   Talk 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Joao. I remember there being talk that he would have become Liverpool's youngest player if he played against Sparta, but he didn't even make the bench. Hypothetically, he might not make the grade and not play for a professional club. If that happens then will people remember him ten years from now? No. Argyle 4 Life  talk  08:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note According to Liverpool's website he's been called up for the Under-17 World Cup and capped for the under-16s, and moreover been covered for it, which should be enough to qualify him for WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.171.189 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Youth caps aren't enough. If it was then there would be thousands of stubs about part-time footballers who never made the grade professionally. Liam Head played for England at under-16 and 17 level and was given a professional contract on his 17th birthday, but has not played in a senior match. Argyle 4 Life  talk  07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - albeit with work done. As of now the article fails certain important tests; this is not in contention. That being said there is information, media attention and public reputation in the national press. This article warrants, and not  - anything else is hamfistedness; we're supposed to be an encyclopaedia here. Cheers, Jonomacdrones  (talk)  23:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY (caps at youth level don't afford notability). The independent media coverage is no more than routine sports coverage: he signed for a big club, he scored five goals for their youth team against the youth team of a fourth-tier club, he might have been among the substitutes for a game, but wasn't. Notability is not temporary: recreate when and if he actually does something in the game. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I mention WP:NFOOTY only to confirm that it can't be used to circumvent his failing WP:BIO because of lack of significant media coverage. Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:N criteria TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To elaborate further: Notability (people) states: "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."
 * The only real criterion to be notable is receiving non-trivial coverage by third-part media outlets. This is what separates Sterling from other players who have not played for their clubs or country - they haven't received coverage from media outlets. Whether he has actually accomplished anything is no longer relevant. (the above was the reasons used by user:Faithlessthewonderboy when preventing Anton Peterlin from being deleted). He cited Lebron James and O.J. Mayo as two similar examples. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On Peterlin, the article was at the time sourced to six versions of the story "Everton about to sign American unknown". That editor may have convinced one other not to pursue deletion once the speedy (for re-creation of a previously AfD'd article) was rightly turned down, but you'll be aware that sources being "intellectually independent of each other" means that multiple sources running the same story doesn't count as multiple coverage. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:BIO uses the key word "significant" coverage: WP:NTEMP says that "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I'm the person who "boldly" undeleted it. Later, I regretted having done this: after all, if a case for undeletion were blazingly obvious, then it would be blazingly obvious in a DRV discussion -- a DRV discussion that, if it succeeded, would preempt any further AfD such as this. (Help, I'm drowning in alphabet soup!) Don't take my resuscitation of the article as a "keep", and don't take this comment as a "delete". -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic does pass WP:GNG which trumps WP:NFOOTBALL, not the other way around.--Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep seems substantial enough. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, yes he fails WP:NFOOTY quite easily. I believe the grey area of WP:GNG comes down to the fact a lot of the articles fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP, and are fairly WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo[online] 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm going to really annoy a lot of my colleagues at WP:FOOTY, but here goes anyway... the main argument against retention seems to be that the sources found are routine sports coverage and thus don't count towards notability under WP:NOTNEWS (not WP:ROUTINE, part of the guideline relating to events, as someone said above). But I don't think this is the case. Yes, the Sky Sports and Mirror pieces are fairly routine, but this one is more marginal, including a fair amount of biographical content not related to the then-current story. And this, while triggered by a news story, expands its coverage to include family details and discussion about future prospects. Does this really count as routine coverage? I would say not. I'm sure plenty of others disagree. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Will soon become an international star, and play for Liverpool FC, so what is the point of deleting the article, when it is going to have to be created again very soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.104.254 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, because most of the coverage centred on something that might have happened, but in actual fact didn't happen (him playing for the Liverpool first team and thereby setting a new club record). He clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and only arguably passes GNG due to that speculative coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - He hasn't actually done anything remarkable. Most of the coverage of him is due to the fact that he might have broken the record for Liverpool's youngest player had he played a few weeks ago. But the fact is, he didn't play, he hasn't broken any records, and right now he's just another promising youngster. – PeeJay 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - obviously he fails WP:FOOTY for the reasons already given (i.e. he has yet to achieve anything of note on the field), and the only reason he's had media coverage is because he signed for Liverpool, which to my mind falls under the "Subjects notable only for one event" category. &mdash;BETTIA&mdash; talk 10:35, 22 March 2011 (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.