Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Bennett (footballer)

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. ÷seresin 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bennett (footballer)

Contested PROD by IP user without explanation. Later edits indicated that the user believed he played against Doncaster towards the end of the 2008–09 season, although sources state otherwise. He fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:ATH#Athletes almost all professional football players that play for a even major clubs are - at least de facto - included here. While I personally think that this policy should be reviewed and additional requirements of notability shuld be added to said policy, as it stands he does pass this bench mark, as he is signed by the proessional team of the Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C.. Passportguy (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is signed to the club, but fails the bench mark by not having made an appearance for them as the criteria states. --Jimbo^[online] 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are technically correct. However that will likely change very soon (unless you have an indication to the contrary ?). So deleting the article now even though the person in 99 % likely to pass the criterion in the very near future seems a bit nitpicky. Passportguy (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like crystal balling. --Jimbo^[online] 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry; being signed by a professional club is not, by itself, sufficient. Many pro football clubs sign many youth players who never make the grade. Once he sets foot in anger on the pitch for a competitive match he gets his page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree that purely being signed is not sufficient notability. However I suspect that all people that are signed (and thus cost the club money) are very likely to play eventually. Otherwise the club wouldn't be paying them - what would be the point ? The way I understand the article - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that this person is a professional football player signed to play for the A team of this club, having recently been "promoted" from the junior team. And again, while that technically doesn't qualify him, he will once he does play and I have no indication that he is unlikely to do so under normal circumstances.Passportguy (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - no; many players at pro clubs don't make the grade. Clubs sign them on potential, as am investment in the future, but we can't crystalball. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I would be amazed if he plays for Wolves this season with them now playing at top flight level; he's never even been a substitute in the Championship before and is very physically slight. He could be loaned out potentially but at just 17, the club may well keep him under wraps for a little longer so I wouldn't necessarily expect a breakthrough for the short term future. Wolvesweb (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:Athlete. If we start including players who haven't played at an appropriate level then we are effectively without any objective notability standard. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate if he plays first-team football. As stated above it isn't at all unusual for youngsters to be signed by professional clubs and then released without ever playing first-team football - I can think of about a dozen young players this has happened to at the club I support, Gillingham, in the last decade, and it's even more likely to occur at bigger clubs where the young 'uns have to jostle for places with far more players and there are bigger prizes at stake making managers even less likely to put untried kids in the team. Reasons why youngsters get signed and then leave without ever playing first-team football are many and varied - a new manager might replace the one who gave a young lad a contract and not see the same potential his predecessor did, he might suffer a serious injury in training, or he might just "go off the boil" as he gets older, either way it's not that unusual, and we certainly shouldn't create articles based solely on the assumption that just because a teenager's been given a contract that it will automatically lead to a place in the first team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player Uksam88 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (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.