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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Quillan Roberts

Quillan Roberts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested at WP:UND on the grounds that he has signed but not played for Toronto FC, has received coverage, and played a pre-season friendly against Liverpool, and based on the age of the article. The age of an article has no bearing whatsoever on notability. The coverage he has received appears to all be routine sports journalism, mostly match reports and player bios. WP:NSPORT excludes both friendly matches and players who have not played in competitive matches. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON and so if a user wants to step forward, we could move it to their user space until the subject meets notability guidelines. It shouldn't remain in main space until such time. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Roberts easily meets WP:GNG with national media coverage. For example [1] which is a long feature article on him, from almost 2 years ago, in Canada's largest mainstream national newspaper; the article was from Canada Press, and was carried that day in many large local and regional papers across the nation. There's other mainstream articles such as [2] [3]. Previously had received international media attention for a stunning goal (Roberts is a keeper) he scored against England in a U-17 World Cup match [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I admit that media coverage for much of the last 2 years hasn't been met WP:GNG but older coverage does. And I ask you ... can you name an MLS player who has sat on the bench for more league matches, and doesn't have a minute of playing time? Nfitz ( talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - so he got a bit of hype a few years ago when he was heralded as "the next big player" - big whoop, happens all the time, nothing but WP:ROUTINE. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, is not notable as a player yet. Giant Snowman 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • International news coverage over a 1-year period with multiple feature articles, is not WP:Routine. Even national news coverage of TFC signings of Academy players isn't routine. That's why there are no article for Manny Aparicio (nor should there be yet). Nfitz ( talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Transfer coverage of any kind is routine sports journalism, and the signing of an academy player to the first team even more so. The international coverage he has received consists entirely of match reports which is equally routine. This has been a long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• I don't believe there has been consensus about this at WP:FOOTY. Last I recall it went the other way if the articles were about the players - do you have a reference? 5 sentences about a transfer might be routine. A long feature article at the time of a transfer, or something spectacular or unusual that happened in a game and is focused on the player rather than being a routine match report, is not routine. Gosh, when was the last time YOU saw much of anything about a particular TFC player in the Globe and Mail (other than huge mega signings like Bradley or DeRosario ... or that Brit whose names escapes me) - it's not like they report on the sport very often, compared to the bigger sports ... let alone have a feature on a signing. Nfitz ( talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Obviously doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. References are routine. Optimism remains between the posts for TFC is the only one that could be considered non-routine. Refs don't pass the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• How does it not pass "significant coverage". WP:GNG notes that "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Not only is that article more than a passing mention, he IS the main topic of the source material. Surely then it more than passes "significant coverage". Nfitz ( talk) 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league. No indication that he has received the level of coverage required by GNG. The "long article" noted above is significantly under 500 words and so would count as a stub on WP! The "outstanding goal" is an obvious example of WP:BLP1E. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage, in-depth interviews or articles, only WP:ROUTINE. Fenix down ( talk) 13:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• 500 words in a paper that doesn't carry much sports coverage - I'm sure your familiar with the Globe and Mail and their lack of much sports coverage, let alone a relatively unpopular sport like soccer. Nfitz ( talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure how that's relevant. GNG doesn't weight sources like that, it merely requires significant reliable third party coverage. Fenix down ( talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• The Globe article is significant 3rd party coverage. The story is so significant it was carried by a national paper that doesn't carry much sports coverage, and even less coverage of minor sports like soccer! Though that's beside the point ... the point is, that it meets WP:GNG. Nfitz ( talk) 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• One article does not mean there is significant coverage, especially when it is only 500 words long, so no it doesn't really meet GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• One wouldn't mean it was significant. However as I pointed out above there were many, and I referenced more than one. Nfitz ( talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (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.