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 Sorry, but while the subject of the article is interesting, the article is not compelling enough nor notable enough for Encyclopedia inclusion. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain Davis[edit]

Rhain Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

While he has been in the news today, in two to three weeks he'll be forgotten about until such time as he moves from the 9 year old camp at United to the reserves or the full team. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This person fails the notability requirements for football players on wikipedia. While it's an extraordinary news feature, wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a collection of current event news articles. Batman2005 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a news source Gorkymalorki 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete I disagree. We have extensive coverage of other news events on Wikipedia. This boy is an example of the differing trends in soccer and is therefore important. Joebloggsy 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the boy is an example of the fact that teams can sign 9 year olds to their club. Nothing more. Just because this one was featured on youtube prior to being signed does not make him any more notable than any other player. The fact that the press did stories about it simply means that he's a news topic...which is not what wikipedia is about. Batman2005 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Newsworthy ≠ Encyclopedia-worthy. Number 57 08:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for info, previous similar AfDs here and here both resulted in deletions ChrisTheDude 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fair enough this kid has been in the news but its not as if he's going to be reported on regularly from now on. It's only because of the over-zealous media, and the advent of YouTube, that he got so much coverage. Obviously he doesn't meet the criteria for football players. Come back in seven years and maybe an article will be worthwhile then. Bigmike 09:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Now that all the news programmes have finished filling their "and finally...." slots for a day, this kid will not be reported on by the media for at least another seven or eight years..... ChrisTheDude 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If, by "and finally," you mean the front page of The Sun? Matt Fitzpatrick 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to his popularity on the internet, which is the main reason he made front page news, I believe he is an Internet phenomenon. Englishrose 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's not an internet phenomenon, the only reason he's known on the internet is because he's young and he has been contacted by Manchester United F.C... but an internet phenomenon is, like the article says, a catchphrase or concept, like "O RLY" and "all your base are belong to us" - Simeon87 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply, not true. An Internet phenomenon includes people. The likes of Peter Oakley due to his popularity on YouTube have become one, I believe that he has become an Internet phenomenon in the same way. Englishrose 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyAlso, before signing for Man U he had 3 million viewers[1] that for me suggests he is an Internet phenomenon. Englishrose 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply The source, written AFTER he signed with United, says that at current he has 3 million viewers, meaning that a significant portion of those viewers came after he signed with United and people were told of a youtube.com video. Batman2005 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How he became an internet phenomenon is irrelevant. The fact is that he is an internet phenomenon. His video has had more views than any of geriatric1927’s videos, one of the biggest internet phenomenon who in turn has his own wikipedia articles that has survived. Just for the record, his video had already been viewed by 800,000 before he signed for Man U. Englishrose 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's entirely relevant. He became, what you call, an internet phenomenon ONLY because his story was featured in a NEWS ARTICLE. People read the article then went to the youtube site to look at the video. Had there been no news article, there would be no 3 million views. Simply put, the kid DOES NOT meet the requirements to retain an article on wikipedia. Batman2005 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, y delete??? joel123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.129.44 (talk • contribs) — 144.137.129.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - we don't have articles on reserve/youth team players until they play their first professional game, much less a 9-year old. - fchd 11:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable bio and also a vanity article. Keb25 13:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say it's a "vanity article." He has achieved a small amount of fame due to the manner in which he was signed by United. I just think the creator rushed into making a page without understanding notability guidelines. Batman2005 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like any other sportsman, he gets his article when he plays for the first team. Nick mallory 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. there are loads of articles on players who've never kicked a ball for a first team. They've just slipped into wiki without being seen: e.g. see links here, here, here, here, here, and here among many other places. See also Category:Reserve team football. I'd say the vast majority of those people linked in those articles are totally unworthy of encyclopedia articles, esp. as loads of the info cannot be verified, e.g. how can any wikipedians verify the info in articles such as Sean Anderson and Ben Amos?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those two should go too. WP:BIO does state that players who are considered part of the recognised first team squad at a large club but have yet to make their debut can have an article, but Anderson and Amos don't fit into that category, and Davis certainly doesn't ChrisTheDude 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't actually play for the first team. So therefore, no. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This boy is an internet phenom like the star wars kid, or the numa numa kid. Its just that his talent was posted on youtube this time. We all are curious about teen phenoms and their rise to the professional soccer world. 208.177.144.102 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly a recentism case. Not a notable sportsman yet, not a notable Internet phenomenon as well. --Angelo 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think the page should remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.167.153.28 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 August 2007.
  • Do you have a reason which would be in accordance with any rule or standard on wikipedia? If not, then "it should remain" simply because you want it to...isn't good enough. Batman2005 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per fchd's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE - If panos and juan carlos chera dont get a article, then neither does this guy. Portillo 08:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have seen the video and he looks good for a kid his age. However, at the moment he has won attention for one thing which may be short lived. If he plays for Manchester United or Australia or a professional team, he will then be notable. Tiger Woods appeared on the Mike Douglas show at the age of two putting against Bob Hope but he wasn't notable by Wikipedia standards until he started winning tournaments. The same applies to Rhain Davis. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This kid seems to have become known primarily for being signed by Manchester United at the age of nine. I am doubtful that the video would come to such prominence without that. He may have caught the eye briefly but I see no evidence of long-term historical notability here. WP:NOT#NEWS --Malcolmxl5 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also dont think there is any historic notability to this kid. Maybe if he ever makes it to the highest professional level, he'll be notable Corpx 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definite recentism, I bet not too many people will remember who this kid is in a couple of weeks. Canuck85 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You are right, people may not remember him later. However he has been listed as a child prodigy and people will come here to find out about him in the future, whether he makes it or not so that they can remember him. crazydudeman66 4 Aug 2007 15:58
  • Reply We don't keep articles just because somebody called him a child prodigy. We keep articles which meet certain criteria decided upon by the community it large. If people in the future wish to remember this child there will no doubt be archived news articles about how he was signed to the United Academy. Batman2005 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recentism and hype. Curiously enough, the video itself does not actually indicate anything special in the grand scheme of things, just favorable highlights of one kid's playing skills against other 9 year olds hyped up because people want to believe there will one day be an English Maradona. Agree he'll be forgotten in a few weeks. Reconsider if and when he starts playing for a professional club. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He does not satisfy the general notability guidelines (i.e., has not played at the highest professional level) and does not appear to warrant a deviation simply because of a recent, high level of current interest and coverage. Jogurney 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "failure to meet the criteria," which, for athletes, includes competition "in a fully professional league" or "at the highest level in amateur sports," "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." This is an awkward criteria to apply, as the difference between professionals and amateurs in international football is not as clear as in American sports. Further, every footballer in the article about Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy Squad is already listed and wikilinked. When Davis is added to the list upon manutd.com's next content update, why must we leave him redlinked, or start his article over from scratch? Matt Fitzpatrick 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You're wrong. The players in the Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy Squad article are not the 30+ kids signed every year. They are inherently more notable because they play for a reserve team, or have been called into youth national teams. Being one of 30 kids to sign to a club, an occurrence which takes place every year...isn't notable. Batman2005 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Matt Fitzpatrick Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete they did not sign him to their club--which would have been very notable. they admitted him as one of the "30 nine year olds every year" they admit to their training camp. No more notable than any other footballer his age in the group. The article continues, that many of them eventually become professional. Then will be the time for an article DGG (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is clearly established by the sources. Everyking 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Wrong. Simply having stories written about you doesn't make you notable. It makes you talked about. Notability ISN'T established by the sources, it just talks about him being signed. His notability it judged based on his footballing, and he doesn't fit the requirements at this time. Batman2005 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is demonstrated by the existence of the sources. WP:N. Everyking 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong, an obituary is a newspaper source, but does not indicate notability. Feature stories are done in Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine about youth athletes...but they're not notable enough for inclusion. The kid doesn't meet the requirements, which is what an overwhelming number of people on here agree with. Batman2005 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I linked you to the policy; it's stated plain and simple. Multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. You may have your own personal definition of notability, but we're not deciding based on that. Everyking 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia. The child doesn't meet the requirement. Again, just because a few newspapers did a story doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. There are literally hundreds of stories each day with multiple papers doing stories that don't get mentioned here. The kid is a footballer, he fails the requirements for a footballer to have an article. This isn't hard to understand.Batman2005 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia" We're not, we are dedicing whether this article should be deleted under the current notability guidlines. A discussion on changing the notability guidelines is not for this AFD.Englishrose 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Uh...that's not what I said, but good job trying to put words in my mouth. We judge all articles for notability based on the same standard. Football players are all judged on the same standard, Politicians are all judged on the same standard, Musicians are all judged on the same standard, etc, etc, etc, etc. As a footballer, this kid fails miserably to meet the requirements. I fail to see how you can argue that, and I fail to see how it can't be glaringly obvious to you. Under the current notability guidelines...this article fails, and does so miserably. An overwhelming number of people on this page agree with me, only like...3 people seem to think otherwise, it's gotten funny. Batman2005 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After slogging through The Sun's and others' similar news reports, I began starting to change my mind. Superficial, poorly researched, poorly attributed reports, even in MSM, are still superficial, still poorly researched, and still poorly attributed. Caroline Cheese's article for the BBC, though, is the light at the end of this journalistic tunnel. Her in-depth research presents the clearest picture of how sports experts feel about Davis: decidedly ambivalent. Do experts seeing lots of potential, but no guarantees, plus a YouTube phenomenon, add up to Wikipedia notability standards? It's going to be a closer call than I first thought. Matt Fitzpatrick 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG and others. An internet meme at best. Nobody will know who he is in a month's time. 213.79.36.48 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, forgot to sign in. Also note a seeming sock flood. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the media outlets are re-presenting the same story - he is not the subject of multiple work from independent sources. If he hits the news again in an independent manner then we would have multiple independent sources - and it would be worthwhile having an article about him then. But not while everyone keeps spouting exactly the same press release from MU.Garrie 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not the same story. Look at them. They are different stories covering the same thing. Everyking 22:55, 7 August 2007 (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.