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. Try as I might, I can find no consensus for deletion having been formed here. The article itself is amply sourced, well-formatted, and quite uncontroversial, so it's not the most precarious BLP in the world. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Fenwick[edit]

Bayan Fenwick (edit | 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 without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes the general notability guidelines, with many cited sources that provide in-depth coverage of career events. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. All the sources cited in the article are routine transfer reporting by local newspapers. The long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY is that transfer / match reporting doesn ot count towards establishing GNG. There is nothing of any substance published at any level that would garner significant attention on this player. Fenix down (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject is not yet notable as a soccer player, but the amount that has been written about him certainly establishes general notability. Articles such as this one are in-depth discussions of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 250 word article from a local newspaper about his transfer from one club to another. The sorts of quotes on the player are the sort trotted out at countless press conferences held up and down the country. There's no discussion of the player in any detail, only platitudes from his employers. Not only is that not an in depth article on the player by definition because of its length, it is specifically the sort of routine transfer talk that long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY has agreed does not constitute significant coverage, because the coverage such as that in the sources you have added isn't actually about any achievement. I note in the article, that all the sources are about him basically being released from one club and then signing for another in a lower division. There isn't actually anything in the article or the sources about him playing football. That is precisely why transfer reports do not help establish notability. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football may define notability criteria that apply when a subject does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG), but cannot override the GNG. The sources provide in-depth discussion of the subject's career and expert comments on his overall performance. The article deliberately avoids reports of specific matches. I see no reason why that that very detailed information should be added, but the sources are of course available. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting completely the wrong end of the stick, this is not a discusison about NFOOTY, the established consensus in football player AfDs is that transfer talk, which almost all of the sources you added are, do not count toward GNG because they are routine. to avoid any further confusion, these are the specific issues with each of the sources presented and why they do not help satisfy GNG:

1. Source 1 is a source from the players school, it is by definition a primary source and therefore does not count towards establishing GNG. Aside from this, the achievements noted are very minor in the grand scheme of things. For further guidance on why this source is not appropriate for notability purposes, please see WP:NHSPHSATH.
2. Source 2 Is from a sports management company, presumably one that was paid to produce his c.v. This is not a reliable source in any sense of the word.
3. Source 3 is a 38 word article, of which a grand total of 9 words are about the player. All this states is that he joined a club. I cannot imagine a source that could provide less depth than this on a subject.
4. Source 4 is a 150 word announcement in a local newspaper that he is on trial at a club playing at such a level that even an official appearance for them would not count towards WP:NFOOTY. There is no depth to this article whatsoever.
5. Source 5 is a 116 word article consisting essentially of one brief comment on the player from his manager. It's also a comment that essentially says he isn't really that good at football. Hard to see how this counts towards notability when it basically says he's not even that notable at the club for whom he plays.
6. Source 6 isn't even an article about him, it's about Eastbourne Borough FC. Fenwick gets a very brief mention lasting about 100 words on one substitutes appearance for a non-league side. Again, this is in no way significant coverage, this is the usual post match interview with a manager converted into a brief story in a local newspaper.
7. SOurce 7 is a 44 word note that states six players were released from their academy. Bayan Fenwick is mentioned by name but nothing else. this is essentially the least depth an article could go into about an individual and still actually make mention of them.
8. Source 8 is another local newspaper report lasting 147 words. It is insignificant in both length depth and the original audience of the report and essentially says nothing beyond the same platitudes all the other manager comments in previous sources have made.
9. Source 9 is yet another local newspaper report. Again, this deals with him very briefly (144 words) and again deals with him being on trial, not even being officially signed. The quote from the manager I heard he was available so I wanted to have a look at him sums it all up in terms of the significance of this source.
10. Source 10 is not even about the player, it is an article on Peacehaven FC. Fenwick's mention lasts all of 14 words.
11. Source 11 is the definition of routine transfer talk. In this article alone, there are links to four other similar articles on players Torquay had signed.
12. Source 12 is yet more routine transfer talk that essentially adds nothing that is not mentioned in source 8.

So in summary, yes, people have written about Fenwick, but they have not done so in any detail, he receives passing mentions at best in local newspapers and he has never played football at any significant level. Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The effort taken by User:Fenix down is impressive, but the above conclusions are bizarre. All the sources are reliable and independent, local newspapers included. The less-than-positive remarks and use of jargon in no way detract from notability. The whole article, crammed with well-sourced information, has 382 words. Articles that talk entirely about the subject with 150, 116, 147, 144, 250 words are clearly substantial coverage. The essay on Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is amusing but irrelevant. The various sources that describe the subject's career in detail are far from Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage of isolated events. All that counts is that the article passes the simple but powerful test of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent sources, as it does with flying colors. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:ROUTINE, particularly the specific note: Low-impact local events with light media coverage, even if that coverage is from multiple sources, perspectives, and over a period to time, may still be deleted per WP:ROUTINE. The deletion of a A Wikipedia article about a local crime confirmed this view. This is precisely the issue that I have highlighted, the only coverage this player has ever received (regardless of length - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether 100-200 word articles are significant) is in local newspapers with a circulation restricted to an area the size of a small town in the UK. Your comments are also at odds with the remark in WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements... are not sufficient basis for an article. Almost everything cited in the article is an announcement of a transfer, trial at, or release from a club. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ROUTINE is about minor local events, and says they may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. This article is not about a single event, but covers the many events in the subjects's career. Several sources take a single event such as a transfer as a hook, then discuss his career in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, and the transfer of a player from one local non-league team to another is exactly that, a low-level local event, hence why it is only covered briefly in low-level, local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's time the guidelines to semi professional footballers should be changed on here. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources like this we should include them, regardless if the league isn't fully "professional".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dr. Blofeld: um that already is the case - GNG 'beats' NFOOTBALL any day of the week i.e. it doesn't matter if you are professional or not; if you have enough coverage, you are notable. The issue here is the lack of coverage as well as the lack of professionalism! GiantSnowman 16:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, but this IMO has enough coverage to meet GNG. I wasn't expecting you to agree with me :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on your view that he meets GNG now I have provided a detailed analysis of the length and depth of coverage in the sources presented? Fenix down (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'd be wasting my time as it's clear nothing will change your mind, you're the "expert" on footballers along with GS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage, most of what is present is WP:ROUTINE transfer news and simply not in-depth enough. GiantSnowman 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that if a subject has mention and some reference in at least a dozen sources it's very often notable, regardless of extensive coverage actually written about it. There's a lot of articles I can think of which have a place on here, despite not having a mass of material written about it. Subjects become notable when at least a dozen publications choose to mention and write at least something on a person or topic. Take Martin Miller (actor, born 1899) for instance. I don't think he has more coverage than Fenwick has in any given source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would note then that your opinion seems to be directly at odds with WP:SIGCOV when almost all of the dozen sources presented mention the player in only a handful of words. Fenix down (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I speak from experience Fenix down at what is generally accepted on here. There's several hundred thousand topics on here which have similar sort of coverage but we include. They become notable people dozens of reliable publications want to mention them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your "experience" is meant to add to this discussion, this is an attempt to have an objective discussion on the significance of the sources, not to decide whether to keep an article based on the "experience" of individual editors. If it were though, I would suggest that such pomposity was perhaps ill-advised when it is clear that your experience in AfD is considerably less than that of other editors. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Far too WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nearly any footballer in any club could fall into this. I would say that WP:NCOLLATH helps shed a bit of light on this (even though its not a college football team). Jcmcc (Talk) 23:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcmcc450: The article cites various sources that give in depth coverage, but there are many more. Would removing some of the more routine items and leaving the in-depth coverage make the topic more notable? From a comment by User:Fenix down (above) the problem is the opposite, that there are not enough play-by-play details like "A deflected Fenwick shot on 28 minutes went close but out for a corner...". Either way, Google search results and news results show many sources discussing the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: Hmm.. I don't see anything on first blush, is there a specific source you are referring to? Just for kicks, I tried the same google search on my own name (being a semi-professional League player and USAF airman), and I found lots of what anyone would consider "trivial" news... Jcmcc (Talk) 02:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, you seem to have misunderstood me, play-by-play details are exactly what is not required here. By definition, these would come from a match report about the club, not an article providing significant coverage of the player per se. They would also fall under the banner per my comments above. it would also be helpful rather than just saying "have you googled him?" to point out which otherwise unmentioned sources provide coverage to satisfy GNG, particularly when the first page google news results returns articles, not only clearly are not significant coverage of the player but also are mere mentions of his name in match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. Most sources cited by the article name Fenwick in their title: Fenwick is their primary topic. They typically report a minor event, then go on to discuss the subject's soccer ability and career in some depth. The general notability guideline is simple. It does not matter if the subject is "important". If several reliable independent sources discuss it in some depth, as is the case here, it is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Fenix down and GiantSnowman. The subject has not yet established notability within his field. This is a clear case of WP:ROUTINE coverage. It is likely that the subject will become notable in future given his current career trajectory. However, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the article should be deleted for now. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage applies to an article about a given event, not to a biography. Where in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does it say a subject must have established notability within his field? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort of. Why would Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage specifically mention obituaries if it only applied to events and not people. Follow the Spirit of the law and stop wikilawyering. It's clear that the subject does meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The fact remains the subject has done nothing notable, no matter how much the media may pander to sports fanatics. If he were to tragically die tomorrow he would remain an athlete who never played in a professional club and has therefore contributed nothing of note to his profession.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: I don't think I am wikilawyering. I did not bring up WP:ROUTINE, but it is a section in Wikipedia:Notability (events), and very clearly talks about individual events such as births, marriages and deaths. These are normal parts of a biography but rarely enough for a stand-alone article. The General Notability Guideline very carefully avoids any mention of "importance", because it is so difficult to get agreement on that. Is a particular garden center or Pathan poet important? The GNG says it is notable if there is enough independent coverage, not if there is not enough coverage. Simple. Introducing the concept of "importance" and judging notability on that basis opens a whole can of worms. Better to let a few harmless and well-sourced articles on minor topics stay in the encyclopedia. There is plenty of room. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NOHARM for an outline of why that is not an acceptable reason to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that is wikilawyering. The reason to keep is that it passes GNG. Saying "the subject is not important so should be deleted" reopens a debate that has been closed long ago. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I thought the standard was that footballers only qualified for articles, if they were regular first team members of a fully professional club. Some one just signed by Torquay United, after a series of trials and non-league roles soes not qualify yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject would not qualify as an "inherently notable footballer", but anyone can qualify under the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline if they have significant coverage by reliable independent sources, as here. Basically GNG trumps FOOTY. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable footballer. Kante4 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Recap - The above discussion is largely about whether the subject is "important" as opposed to whether it meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (WP:GNG).

• The guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football (WP:NFOOTY) has been brought up. The subject has not played in a fully professional league, so would not be considered notable by default. As stated in the guideline, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline..."
• The guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE, aka WP:DOGBITESMAN) has been mentioned more than once. This guideline is about routine coverage of specific events, which typically do not warrant an article of their own. It does not apply to a biography, which would include many such events. "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article..." That is, in an article about the team or the player.

The General notability guideline avoids any discussion of whether a subject is "important", which is wide open to debate. Instead it says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material..."

The sources used by the article are mostly local newspaper stories that report a career move, then give comments by a team manager and a summary of Fenwick's career to date. The team manager comments as reported by the secondary sources are relevant to indicate motivation for hiring or firing Fenwick. Cited sources, with counts of sentences about the subject, include:

• "Torquay United sign former Crystal Palace attacking midfielder". Western Morning News. 2015-07-23. Twelve sentences
• "Former Crystal Palace wide man Bayan Fenwick on trial with Boston United". Boston Target. 2015-01-12. Eight sentences
• "Boston United give trial to former Crystal Palace and Cardiff City youngster Bayan Fenwick". Boston Standard. 2015-01-12. Six sentences
• "Hart hailed for role in Borough's battle to beat drop". The Argus. 2013-03-23. Five sentences
• "Bayan Fenwick: Torquay United sign former Cardiff youngster". BBC Sport. 2015-07-23. Five sentences
• "TORQUAY UNITED: Midfielder Bayan Fenwick signs as Paul Cox puts finishing touches to squad". Herald Express. 2015-07-23. Five sentences
• "Peacehaven sign Fenwick ahead of derby clash with Lewes". Sussex Express. 2015-02-13. Five sentences
• "Fenwick out to improve". The Croydon Advertiser. 2012-08-03. Three sentences

The sources, presumably reliable for the information they give and independent of the subject, devote 49 sentences to Fenwick. Obviously there is a lot of duplication. The article includes details from other sources, and boils it all down to 22 sentences. Nothing indicates that Fenwick has achieved anything truly remarkable at this stage of his short career, but there is sufficient coverage to easily pass the General notability guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the majority of the above discussion is about nothing of the sort. It is about whether significant coverage of this player has been generated in reliable sources. My comments specifically relate to how there has been some coverage in local newspaper sources, but that none of it has been significant, either in terms of the events they describe, nor in their length. This is echoed by the sentence count above. Literally a handful of sentences have been written about this individual who has never played for any team above the seventh tier in english football. It is also disingenuous to call this a recap, as it does not discuss any of the arguments above for deletion and is fundamentally unbalanced as a result. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Constantly repeating the same arguments over and over to everyone who disagrees with you is not making your case any stronger Aymatth2. We all read what you had to say earlier. The fact that many experienced wikipedians in this discussion are not buying your GNG rational for the notability of this subject should tell you something.4meter4 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: With due respect, myself and Andy are far more experienced content producers here with over 120,000 articles between us and we have a very good general idea of notability. Sadly at WP:Football you have a warped idea of what meets notability requirements, which means that many players which do actually have reasonable coverage have to be deleted, even though dozens of people will be searching for them on a daily basis. Now this is a weaker notability article, but the coverage in reliable source IMO is adequate to pass GNG as demonstrated by Aymatth2 above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus that has been achieved at WP:FOOTY may differ from your personal view, but that does not mean it is wrong. The arrogance in basically telling another to pipe down because you have created more articles than him is frankly, breathtaking. I'm really not sure what it adds to the discussion. I think it would be better if the discussion focussed on critique of the existing sources or presentation of additional sources to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should pipe down on the ad hominem comments on calling someone arrogant. If you can't, perhaps you should step away from this and stop WP:BLUDGEONING all those with whom you disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's alright for another editor to use their edit / article count to assert a position of superiority? It's that sort of attitude that discourages people from editing enWiki. I think I made a perfectly fair comment based on what was written and asked for the discussion to focus on the sources presented. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I claim I or Aymatth were "superior"? You are the one acting like you have a superior knowledge of this topic, not me. Aymatth and myself have a massive amount of general article writing experience and expansions on here though and have a good general idea about what is encyclopedic or what isn't. An equivalent on most other subjects with some coverage in that many sources would almost always pass GNG and be kept.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how your comment With due respect, myself and Andy are far more experienced content producers here with over 120,000 articles between us and we have a very good general idea of notability could suggest anything else, but you obviously don't see it that way. Fenix down (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude to others though is sour at the best of times. I remember I once gave you a barnstar for your work on Siberian geo articles. Not a word of thanks or acknowledgement. Not worth thanking somebody obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, that's not an attitude I recognise in myself on enWiki, so please feel free to post some examples on my talk page, as I wouldn't want to be thought of that way. I presume you are talking about the editor of the week barnstar from over 18 months ago? I assume you must have missed my thanks for the award both here and on my own talk page. I thought a thank you to all involved would have sufficed, given that WP:RETENTION seemed to be behind most of the effort. I am sorry to have offended you by not calling you out by name. I think I'm going to call a halt to this element of the discussion as recent comments really have nothing to do with any part of the discussion that has taken place. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not alright to call another editor arrogant: it's that sort of attitude that discourages people from editing enWiki. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's is when they are hectoring other people and trying to use their own perceived position of importance to bully others. Comments like the one he made add nothing to the debate and when written were not intended to add to the debate. I see no reason why they shouldn't be highlighted for what they are. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are also guilty of WP:BLUDGEONing, and no-one else has dropped into incivility except you. You may not like being pulled up for calling editors inappropriate names, but WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't a very good response. Drop your stick and accept the comments were inappropriate and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON who knows, he might play sometime for a bigger team, but right now he's in the fifth tier and fails WP:NFOOTY and the refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE, and most are not really in-depth about Fenwick. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG — there are enough references in independent, reliable, third-party sources to justify inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SchroCat, it passes GNG, and this business about "fully professional" is splitting hairs. RO^(talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SchroCat, Passes GNG - clearly notable.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above two !votes by Rationalobserver and Doug Coldwell are the first and only ones at AfD this year (I didn't check further back). Kraxler (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And?? My talk page is watched by nearly 500 people and a lot of people keep tabs on what I edit or speak out against.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain? 203.109.161.2 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SchroCat. I see no justification for this to be deleted. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BBC Sport choose to dedicate a whole article to him. I fail to see how that sort of thing isn't significant coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken Dr. Blofeld, the abovementioned BBC page has Fenwick in the headline, and says something about him (WP:ROUTINE transfer talk) but most of the article is about something else: the manager and his views of the team in general. Kraxler (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Footer bores me blue, but as one who keeps a colleaguely eye on the contributions of Dr B, inter alia, I have made it my business to check the NewsBank archive of UK newspapers, and I see Bayan Fenwick is covered by national papers as diverse as The Daily Telegraph and The Sun as well as regional titles. The first article about him that came up in the search runs to 269 words. One quote from it: "Fenwick is an exciting attacking midfielder with the world at his feet. He is best described as a quick, skilful playmaker, who scores goals from midfield. Fenwick is the link between the midfielders and the strikers, is exceptional at beating a man using his explosive pace, and possesses a great range of passing." And as Dr B rightly says, above, the BBC has a page on him. Notable, surely. – Tim riley talk 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also over two dozen hits in HighBeam Research. The sheer number of reputable publications which discuss this footballer make him notable. I care little for lower league footballers as I'm sure a lot here do, but the point is he does meet GNG and there is enough mention of him in countless newspaper sources to be worthy of inclusion. I can't see why anybody would delete this other than some warped idea of notability. I think it's time WP:FOOTY was given a serious revision as no doubt we've lost hundreds of similar bios because of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The highbeam research links don't seem to be additional sources, just the same transfer talk and match reporting mentioned above. I really don't see how you can say an individual is notable as a footballer when they have played a grand total of 90 minutes of football in their entire career and spread over the last three years. this is the crux of the discussion. There are brief reports about trials and transfers and comments from his employers in the local press, but he never actually plays. You can't be a notable footballer by any notability guideline if you don't actually play football. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what sources say. And there's enough sources to indicate he's notable. And it's not just me or Aymatth who is of that opinion. SchroCat, Cassianto and Tim are prolific featured article contributors who have a good idea about what meets GNG. The sheer number of sources which mention him make him worthy of inclusion. I'm sure in the next few years he'll get more games.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You can be a notable footballer but not play any football as long as you have been discussed in depth by reliable independent sources. Notability is based on how much has been said about a subject, not how "important" or "interesting" it is. That is a fundamental principle. We would allow an article about a knitting pattern or a garden gnome if it has received enough coverage. The coverage may be extremely mundane as long as it is "in depth", which basically means it is enough to build a meaningful article without any original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Standard transfer talk, nothing substantial that tells us anything about his career and all WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 13:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from somebody who has articles deleted like [1], [2] and [3], you're not exactly in a good position to comment on GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those were valid when the original WP:ATH criteria for all athletes was something along the lines of "Had to have competed in a fully-professional level". This meant two pro-fighters fighting each other in a sanctioned boxing match met the criteria. As you can see, I didn't contest either of those AfDs/PROD. So don't try and discredit me for articles made probably 5+ years ago when criterion was massively different. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Dr. Blofeld, the guy has played a total of 90 minutes in 6 games, 5 times coming in as a substitute, and the only time he started a game, he was taken off the field. This flies in the face of all the praise cited above, or is there some cabal going on that prevents England's most talented player from appearing anywhere above the fifth football division and play a single whole game? You're making a laughingstock out of yourself. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see who's laughing when this is closed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lighten up guys. This is only Wikipedia, and only a minor article. Ebenezer Cobb Morley is probably turning in his grave, wondering if he passes WP:NFOOTY. I think not, but am willing to grant that he passes GNG, which is all that matters. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond always is laughing in the end. Kraxler (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2015 (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.