Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Farrell (soccer)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Farrell (soccer)

Andrew Farrell (soccer) (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)

Article about a footballer who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but only just. At the moment he fails
  general notability guidelines, in my opinion. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and the coverage he has received is routine, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Although he hasn't yet played, but he has been drafted into a pro league. He has also received multiple awards. Bensci54 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He was the overall number one draft pick at the just-concluded 2013 MLS SuperDraft, and has been the subject of piles of coverage in reliable sources, which discuss not only his performance as a college star and his prospects under his new MLS contract, but also his interesting background story as a kid from Louisville who learned to play soccer in Peru where his parents were missionaries for 10 years. Passes GNG, and I can't see how deleting this article would be a net positive for Wikipedia's coverage of American soccer.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep based on post-secondary awards garnered and prominence of being chosen first in the MLS draft which seems to meet GNG. However, I do see that he currently fails NFOOTBALL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as noted he was the first overall draft pick in this year's draft, there's no doubt in anybody's mind that he will be the most "used" rookie in the MLS and making a page is inevitable. Look at previos MLS SuperDraft and anyone at the top does not go unnoticed 2012 MLS SuperDraft, 2011 MLS SuperDraft, 2010 MLS SuperDraft, etc. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)— Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the #1 draft pick by the top professional soccer league in the United States plus significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. Has significant coverage in reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes
  talk) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (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.