- Lauri Dalla Valle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Page was deleted way back in March 2008 because the footballer in question failed WP:ATHLETE; however, he easily passes WP:N as he has had "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Links to four newspaper articles can be found on the player's official site. GiantSnowman 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Recreation I am in favour of allowing for the pages recreation, per the sources brought by GiantSnowman. As with all cases of relatively old AfDs, if the page is recreated I have no objection for it being sent back to AfD to regauge consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original deletion and keep deleted. Then and now, a player with not a single first team appearance in a fully professional team in a league at the national level, who still fails every part of WikiProject Football/Notability. There's no point recreating an article in the certain knowledge that it will be redeleted. – iridescent 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed the point completely; although he fails the specific WP:ATHLETE guidelines, he passes the more general WP:N quite easily. GiantSnowman 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, but I have not "missed the point completely". WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are both guidelines, not Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, for an article about a professional athlete WP:ATHLETE is clearly the more appropriate guideline to follow. – iridescent 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he meets the general notability guideline (which he appears to), but you feel that the notability guideline for athletes supersedes, take it to AfD if recreation is allowed and make your case there. However, since he does appear to meet the general guideline, I see now problem with allowing the recreation of the article, and then allowing AfD to sort out the particulars. If it an issue of this DRV being cited as precedent in a future AfD, the closing admin can state in his closing that there was no prejudice to an immeadiate AfD on the recreated article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- allow re-creation- Just because he's an athlete doesn't mean we should ignore the general notability guidelines, which per the sources presented, this gentleman meets. Meeting WP:ATHLETE would be nice, but really not necessary in this instance.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow. And please notice that WP:BIO (of which WP:Athlete is a part) defers to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow. WP:N supersedes WP:Athlete in such a case. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- allow recreation ATHLETE carves out a series of exceptions where we include articles even if they don't meet WP:N. That isn't needed here because the individual meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow - per above. ƒingersonRoids 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that WP:N superceded WP:ATHLETE if the context of coverage was non football related (for example, a footballer who didn't meet WP:ATHLETE but was covered due to something unrelated, like a mid range clothing brand and a scandal). In this case however, the press coverage is about the football and events directly related to the football (like moving away from his mother or being bought out by Liverpool), which is exactly what WP:ATHLETE regulates. Being good at PR and thus getting more coverage in news than other players in the same situation doesn't necessarily make one notable. All things considered however, Allow Recreation, give interested editors a few days to add sources and create a meaningful article, and then, if anyone still wants to, defer to AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|