Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Taylor (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   keep. This easily passes GNG and although there could be BLP1E issues although no-one has mentioned these. The majority of the delete arguments are under athlete, which has now been deprecated in favour of NSPORTS, which emphasises that GNG comes first. Therefore although the headcount is clearly for deletion under policy this is a keep Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rhys Taylor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Was previously deleted via AfD, but has been recreated. The player in question still has not made a senior appearance, so the same ATHLETE and GNG arguments that saw the article deleted before still apply. Not sure how similar this is to the article that was deleted, so I can't say whether it qualifies for WP:CSD or not. Big Dom  15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, otherwise delete per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. GiantSnowman 02:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The facts of the matter since the article's past deletion have changed. As the article notes, the player made eight appearances for Chelsea Reserves last season, which qualifies him as having "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He is no longer a youth player. He was named to Chelsea's squad for the 2009-2010 UEFA Champions League. He is on loan to Crewe as a first-team goalkeeper. The article is comprehensively sourced and there are no longer any legitimate grounds to delete it. Philwelch (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: On loan to Crewe Alexandra, Rhys Taylor has made a first-team appearance in a friendly match against Quorn.: . Philwelch (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reserves and a pre-season friendly match are not fully-professional competitions, so he does not pass ATHLETE in any way whatsoever and you're wrong to claim that he does. That guideline is too inclusive already for you to start bending it to your whim. Big  Dom  07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fully professional" literally means all players are paid a full living salary, which is certainly true at the English Premier League reserve level. EPL reserves are the functional equivalent of a AAA minor-league baseball team in the United States--let's pick one at random, the Tacoma Rainiers. Will you list all of the player bios linked there for deletion as well? Philwelch (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not true that the Premier League reserves are fully professional. As a Burnley supporter, I attended several matches in that league throughout last season and both teams often played youth team players, apprentices, and trialists. Here are a couple of the match reports to prove it. And I honestly couldn't give a shit about baseball so I'm not going to nominate them for deletion. Big  Dom  09:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Inclusion in pre-season games by a manager known to favour young players makes it likely that Taylor will play first-team football during the forthcoming season. Paul W (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Try WP:CRYSTAL Big  Dom  07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the club's publicly stated intentions count for anything? Philwelch (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Road to Hell and all that...-- Club Oranje T 12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a request for any administrator voting "delete" on this AFD, or for the closing admin if that admin decides to close this discussion with a "delete". That request is as follows: I ask for your word that you will personally restore the article yourself if Mr. Taylor makes a first team appearance in Football League 2, Football League Cup, or FA Cup play for Crewe Alexandra; or a first team appearance for Chelsea FC in any competition after the season begins in a few weeks' time. You do not have to follow Crewe's fixtures if you do not want to--I will let you know, with verifiable proof, once any of these conditions have been met. Philwelch (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is normal procedure - if and when he makes his competitive début, just post a request at WT:FOOTY and someone will take care of it.  Bettia  (talk)  09:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat less than I am comfortable with but in the absence of a personal promise I will try as you suggest. Philwelch (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once a request is made it would be up, in its current form, within a matter of hours. WFC (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer I'm happy to restore after a competitive debut. Just leave me a message at my talk page and if possible include a link to a reliable source of some kind showing the debut to make things easy for me. Otherwise a request at the project page would work fine I'm sure. Camw (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Without a first team competitive appearance, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Claims that he will make his debut are clearly against WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean recreate, or restore? The existing article is well written and cited--there is no need to throw it out and write a new one. Philwelch (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing effectively - just ask as noted above. If you are rally concerned, ask for userfication and you can put it back yourself if and when.-- Club Oranje T 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:ATHLETE means nothing here (it means nothing ever, given that it has always been considered secondary to the GNG). Nonetheless, on top of his U21 caps, here is evidence to suggest that he might pass the GNG. I may or may not consider looking for more later. WFC (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although reasonably well written and referenced stub, player does not pass notability criteria. Coverage is fairly run-of-mill general sports journalism and he hasn't yet achieved anything of note. Youth caps do not confer notability. No objection to recreation if and when Taylor plays at top level.-- Club Oranje T 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have gone to great lengths not to canvass. But I have mentioned circumstances related to this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). As a follow on to that, as well as this edit, I request that the closing admin considers relisting. At the moment there is debateably consensus to close as either delete or no consensus under the admin's discretion. Either outcome would be within the admin's discretion, and either action would upset a few people. Conversely, relisting may produce a clearer consensus. And it will certainly be beneficial to the entire encyclopaedia, by giving us a good idea of whether the newly-promoted Notability (sports) is working. WFC (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that with regards to footballers NSPORTS is exactly the same as ATHLETE, it should make very little difference. Big  Dom  21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that the recent discussion at WT:FOOTY stagnated due to the development of WP:NSPORTS, I doubt that was the intention. If you are correct, relisting should make no difference to the outcome of the discussion, other than verifying that you are indeed correct. Regards-- WFC (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - all arguments that led to the article being deleted in the past still apply. If any of you thinks differently, then please consider listing it to WP:DRV instead. --Angelo (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Productive, coming twelve minutes after an edit claiming to assert notability was advertised an inch above. Nonetheless, it would be easier to judge whether this should be speedied if non-admins were able to compare the deleted version with the current one. Regards, -- WFC (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nobody asserted his general notability in the first AfD. Two people have this time. You would think that an admin and an AfD addict would be aware that CSD G4 is therefore not applicable. Alas, they either are not aware, or are aware but decided to jump on the deletionist bandwagon anyway. Regards--WFC (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. DRV is thataway -->   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, this is not a speedy candidate, since the article is far more than a recreation of the previously deleted content, and indeed provides refs to at least indicate the subject's importance, even if notability is in question. From my perspective, there are at least 3 separate news articles cited which are specifically about this person.  So he seems to pass WP:GNG, even if somewhat marginally and even though he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE (at least not yet).  But since GNG is sufficient to demonstrate notability, regardless of the subject's chosen profession, he seems worthy of keeping, at least for the time being.  If his notability remains marginal a few months hence and/or if the article becomes a vandalism magnet, it may be worth reconsidering. Rlendog (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AFD discussion seems to suggest a troubling possibility--once a given subject has had an article deleted, there is no shortage of thoughtless editors who assume, just because the subject was not notable at some time in the past and a previous article on them was deleted, that any future article on the same subject is a re-creation and that the subject itself can never attain notability later on. There are good-faith arguments to delete this article for the time being (though I still disagree with them) but it is important for the closing admin to distinguish between these thoughtful arguments and the drive-by "speedy delete" votes which exhibit the tendency I am describing here. Philwelch (talk) 04:25, 21 July 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.