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. Although the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline, but rather provide additional inclusion criteria. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, however, of which there were three:

• The first one, although very brief, does focus solely on the subject. It provides basic listing-type information (trivial) along with critical commentary "The right-back captained Liverpool to victory", and "with some attacking displays from his defensive position".
• The second one, covers the subject of this article as just one player in a game, but does provide a scosch amount of critical commentary, "Stephen Darby surged forward to fire a dangerous ball into the area", making it a stretch as a borderline source for WP:N.
• The third one provides only a trivial mention that he was on the roster of a game, with no critical commentary or statistics.

taken collectively, the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore when we consider the general notability guideline, we find the criteria is not met, and as everyone here seems to agree, the subject-specific guideline is also not met. My decision therefore is Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Darby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The previous AfD only closed three days ago, is a new one really appropriate.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That AfD was withdrawn - it wasn't allowed to continue to a normal close. The basis of the nomination is sound, hence why I've renominated. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional game. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. He can have an article when he actually plays a game! Until then there is the possibility that he won't actually ever appear for the first team and slides away into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. If that's where the line is drawn he is not notable. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe there is an argument for keeping the article based on the reasoning behind the non-deletion of Danny Welbeck - he has a squad number with a 'big' club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egghead06 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per conclusion of previous debate. Continual relisting is gaming the system. Catchpole (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

• Keep per my arguments in previous AfD. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So, what's the plan to incorporate the previous debate into this? Or is this how it will go down when you don't get the result you want - withdraw the nomination and let someone else come up with a new one the next day? Let's say this discussion is about to end in a 'no consensus'; what's there to say that Robwingfield don't withdraw his nomination on Friday with Number 57 coming up with a new nomination Saturday? Now, I'm not saying that this is the reason behind this second nomination, but this is certainly inappropriate, as ChrisTheDude points out. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's certainly not what I'm going to do - please don't cast unfounded accusations. If the AfD goes against WP:ATHLETE and decides to keep the article, then so be it. Neither am I "gaming the system" - there is no AfD that has run to completion on this article... this is the first. robwingfield ^«T•C» 10:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstood me - I was probably not making myself clear. I'm not at all saying "gaming the system" is your motive, nor Number 57's; (on the contrary, I am totally convinced that it isn't). I was speaking hypothetically, pointing out the inappropriate in nominating an AfD so shortly after a previous AfD on the same article has been withdrawn and taking this nomination as an example of how a procedure like this could be mis-used. Even if there doesn't seem to be missing too many people from the old nomination, perhaps it would have been better to have opened up the previous AfD and to have continued where we left off. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability. No professional appearances, no notability: it's so simple... --Angelo (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per the reason for my withdrawal of the original AfD, while he doesn't pass WP:BIO#Athletes, WP:FOOTY/Notability, he does pass WP:BIO#Basic criteria which overrides those two anyway, in that he has a profile on the UEFA site, which is reliable and independent. If UEFA finds him important enough to mention then so should we. John Hayes^talk 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playing devil's advocate here, doesn't the policy require coverage in multiple third-party sources........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally yes, but it's not required, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability, there are other sources, though they aren't independent. I will look for more. John Hayes^talk 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a reference to the ESPN site, and an external link to his BBC profile, that's now three independent reliable sources. John Hayes^talk 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AfD. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the sake of clarity, could at least someone advocating a deletion adress the point of the general WP:N criteria. Are you saying the additional criteria (professional football) overrides the basic criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources), or that the coverage isn't significant enough? Sebisthlm (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - this is just simply not enough time between AfDs. matt91486 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Hayes -- while he may not meet the guideline for athletes, the overriding basic bio criteria has been satisfied. Let us try to see the forest for the trees. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If satisfying basic bio criteria is enough maybe someone could explain just what is the purpose of WP:FOOTY/Notability because it seems to have no merit? --Egghead06 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment personally I don't agree with people saying WP:BIO criteria is satisfied, I don't think enough substantial and reliable sources have been provided. For instance, a BBC profile with a load of zeros is not a reliable source covering the subject in substantial depth. --Angelo (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll agree it wouldn't be enough on it's own, but in combination with the others... (If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability). John Hayes^talk 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However all these profiles do not establish notability on their own, since they do not say anything about the subject, other than his full name, his club and other statistical-only info (e.g., height). So I wouldn't even consider them as "reliable sources". --Angelo (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say "substantial coverage" and "reliable sources" are two different concepts. Lack of depth in the coverage doesn't affect the reliability of the source, in the same way as an obvious bullshit source doesn't become more reliable just because it's thorough. However, I understand your concern; it doesn't exactly seem clear how insubstantial sources can be to, bundled together, confer notability. My view (as always) is that if a single League 2 game is notable, why wouldn't a player profiled by UEFA's official site be notable? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All players which are part of UEFA list for a European club are listed by the official website. As you probably know, a minimum number of players who come from the club's youth system is mandatory. As clubs are not always able to provide these players, they usually fill the remaining spots with youth team footballers. This seems to be the case, as it is for Matteo Darmian of AC Milan (who is however notable only because of a couple of minutes in a domestic cup match). I don't really think a single mention of his name in the UEFA website is enough for ensuring notability, I'd rather instead to see an article from an independent secondary resource talking in depth about the subject. --Angelo (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah I know all about UEFA's squad registration rules. And I didn't mean solely a profile at uefa.com confers notability, but it might together with other sources. I think your example of Darmian is telling, he's a youth player for one of the World's biggest clubs, he's a youth International at U-17, U-18 and U-19 level. He has actually played in a league game for Milan in one of the World's biggest leagues, as well as a handful of cup games, and he turned 18 in December! Of 25-30 players in Milan's primavera squad, which should be one of Italy's absolute best, they chose him to be included in the CL squad. To me he's already more notable than half of the players in League 2. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • AC Milan's primavera team didn't win a single domestic trophy in years, so I am unsure it's one of the best in the world. Darmian, however, managed to become a professional football player (he made his Serie A debut), even if he is not part at all of the first team. But what if tomorrow Stephen Darby decides to retire from football and work in a bakery? Would he be notable yet? --Angelo (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have raised this rhetorical question before, although it's a question worth asking. I will give you the same answer I gave before. If Darby were to quit fotball tomorrow I would agree that he wouldn't go down in history as one of the greatest footballers of all time. On the other hand, I would say he wouldn't be less notable than Robert Grant (who since you and I had our first discussion in May 2007 have doubled his League 2 games to two), a player who clearly satisfy the notability criteria. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Hayes -- Alexf⁴² 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the notability criteria as set out in WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE. Surely the notability of a professional footballer can only be judged by whether he has actually played professional football? The article can be recreated at a click of a button when he does make his professional debut, keeping the article just serves to encourage other editors to create more clutter on non-notable youth footballers. A problem highlighted by the fact he is included in Category:Liverpool F.C. players, how is this sensible when he has never played for the actual team? English peasant 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Hayes. This without question passes the Mzoli's test, as well as our own biographical guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Athlete by a margin. Not a notable sportsman by any stretch of the imagination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 2 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.