Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Welbeck (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 delete faithless (speak) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Danny Welbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. Notability faliure: Player has not played at professional level, therefore fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE (friendly matches and youth internationals do not count under either set of criteria and having a squad number does not confer notability) English peasant 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. He can have an article when he makes a competitive first team appearance. Until then, there remains the possibility that he will never play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom's reasoning Bardcom (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as the previous AfD was only a month ago and the result was Keep, I'm surprised that this has come up again so soon. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware ot the first nom until after I proded it and was halfway throught the AfD process after the prod tag was removed. It does look like the previous AfD was closed by !Vote counting rather than consideration of the debate since several of the keep votes rely WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ILIKEIT and/or a misundertanding of WP:ATHLETE. Another development since the prevoius nom is the development of consensus based guidelines for WP:FOOTY/Notability, which this article also fails. I hope this answers your query as to why I listed it for deletion again. English peasant 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline, it is only an essay, and has not been accepted by the wider community. John Hayestalk 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware ot the first nom until after I proded it and was halfway throught the AfD process after the prod tag was removed. It does look like the previous AfD was closed by !Vote counting rather than consideration of the debate since several of the keep votes rely WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ILIKEIT and/or a misundertanding of WP:ATHLETE. Another development since the prevoius nom is the development of consensus based guidelines for WP:FOOTY/Notability, which this article also fails. I hope this answers your query as to why I listed it for deletion again. English peasant 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom fails our notability criteria and my own examination of sources say that nothing out there beats what is already on the page. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as creator. I've finally given up trying to justify it. Doesn't meet any notability. crassic\talk 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.