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. Subject now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Kanu[edit]

Idris Kanu (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)

Hasn't played in football league Telfordbuck (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page was previously nominated for speedy deletion, by the same nominator, on grounds that it lacked credible claim of significance. My response to this, which can be found here, was that while he plays non-league football, WPFOOTY allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. In particular, the player obtains significant notability in the records he holds for Aldershot Town; being the club's youngest ever player and youngest ever goalscorer. This notability is further reflected by the level of media coverage (from reputable outlets such as the BBC) in respect of the aforementioned records and of him in general, from both youth level and current senior performances. Furthermore, this page previously passed a DYK nomination without any issues and featured on the home page on 31 December 2016. The speedy deletion nomination was promptly removed by RickinBaltimore. I hope the same logic can be applied here. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, given the coverage provided. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (agreed) and WP:GNG - all coverage is minor in local news, or routine transfer in national. Happens to most young players, doesn't make them notable. GiantSnowman 07:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - made his professional debut today, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. @Fenix down, ClubOranje, and Number 57: you might wish to reconsider. GiantSnowman 18:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most young players are not multiple record-holders for their clubs. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Granted there is some coverage of this playerthat is outside of routine match reporting / transfer talk, but this seems to be restricted to local news outlets. The reason it is restricted to local news outlets is because this is a player who play at a level that generally only gets local news coverage and as such is not generally notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)3[reply]

• Keep - Now meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As pointed out before, NFOOTY cannot be read in isolation when it allows for instances where a player can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. These requirements are summarised as "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." The player has received both national (various BBC sources) and local coverage; the coverage is reliable, especially in respect of the records which come directly from the club whose records he has broken; the sources are clearly independent; and the player is suitable for a stand-alone article. As for the statement that "[there is] no indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG", I disagree and point you again to the fact that he is the youngest player EVER to have played and scored for Aldershot, regardless of the league. In the club's entire history, he is the youngest to have achieved that feat. There is certainly notability in that. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bombard each editor with lengthy comments and rebuttals, particularly when they are basically word for word copies of previous comments. Firstly, my argument clearly acknowledges GNG as being more important NFOOTY. Secondly, I explain satisfactorily why this subject does not meet GNG. The fact that he is the youngest goalscorer for a club makes no difference if this is not discussed in a significant manner. As there has basically been no coverage of this player outside of routine match reporting beyond a local level, I do not see him as passing GNG, very brief articles like this in a local news source do not to my mind constitute significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion are debates, and as such rebuttals are more than appropriate. It was not my intention to bombard. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the comments can be considered bombardment. This is a discussion after all, and he does arguably meet WP:GNG. It's not clear cut one way or the other. It would be wrong of him not to discuss further, for surely it is discussion that will lead to the kind consensus, that I think we all seek. Nfitz (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A couple local rag articles but wider coverage is not beyond WP:ROUTINE. Could be argued that coverage is more than some in his situation, but it is not notable, and therefore does not meet GNG. Fails subject specific NFOOTY guidelines. As for the claim he is the club's youngest player and youngest league goal scorer, well it would be fair to say that EVERY club has a youngest player and youngest league goalscorer. Notability is meant to be permanent; when a younger Aldeshot kid comes along, and one will, that little claim to fame disappears. Can be rcreated IF he starts to achieve.ClubOranje^T 12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My comments on GNG and NFOOTY are above so I won't repeat those. My take on the permanence is a little bit different, though. Someone will, in all likelihood break those records (bearing in mind that this could take decades), but he will always have been the club's youngest player / league goalscorer. A sprinter who holds a time-record doesn't lose his notability when his time is broken. Similarly, a younger player/scorer popping up doesn't change the fact that he was once the club's youngest ever player/scorer. At the time he appeared/scored, there had never been a younger player/scorer for the club. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Response If the lad is 'notable' for being the youngest scorer for Aldershot then he is not notable by Wikipaedia standards. This is even below that threshhold of WP:ONEVENT in that it is a non notable event. At best you might give this kid a temporary mention on the Aldershot page. Several tens of thousands of clubs and you want each of their youngest scorers to have a page? To take your example, A sprinter who holds an time record is notable if he holds the world record, not if he holds the record for East Hampshire Amateur Athletics club. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not the archive version of semi-interesting local events. Not everything that gets written in papers qualifies as WikeNotable. ClubOranje^T 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on new development: Hi all, please be advised that Idris Kanu has now signed for Football League One side Peterborough United F.C.^[1] Please take this into consideration. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Can easily be restored if/when he plays a first-team game. Number 57 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that he passes. Liam, try to be a bit more patient next time and wait till a player actually makes his debut, rather than making everyone waste their time like this. Cheers, Number 57 17:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm familiar with the standard required and was of the opinion that his achievements passed GNG. Whether I was correct or not, which is/was the subject of this debate, the creation of the article was done in good faith. I'm not an editor who creates articles en masse for the sake of stats so your suggestion that I wasted everyone's time is out of line, especially for an admin. Nonetheless, thank you for changing your vote in light of the new circumstances. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment on new developments: Player has made his League One debut today - a league that satisfies NFOOTY. Certainly passes the criteria now. Could I please ask for your guys' further thoughts GiantSnowman, Fenix down, ClubOranje and Number 57? Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Liam E. Bekker's immediate above comment subject now meets WP:NFOOTY, there is also a good (but flawed) argument that can be made that Kanu passes WP:GNG as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL having now played in a fully professional league. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (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.