Deletion of Luke Ayling

Comment: As has already been pointed out, he currently fails . As far as the sources on the page go, this is mainly primary sources (Arsenal's websites), a fansite and what appears to be a couple of paragraphs directly quoting from Arsenal's site. The only substantial source is the one from the Guardian which, although it shows that the lad is a promising player, doesn't show that he is any more notable than other promising 18 year olds playing for Premier League youth teams. Media coverage of football is pretty exhaustive right down to Level 10 and beyond, so simply having a few stories written about him doesn't make him notable in this area. There is no guarantee that he will break into the first team, and until he achieves something of note (either by playing competitive football at a fully professional level, or doing something notable in another field), I would have to say delete this article for now. If he does indeed make his fully-pro debut, a quick request at 's talk page is all that's needed for an admin to get it recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:FOOTY)

Comment: you are suggesting that we delete it until such a time as the subject meets . But as I have stated above he is notable under two different guidelines, and only fails one, , which explicitly states that failure of it is not definitive proof of a subject not being notable. All the best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATH)

Comment: even if you were to be that strict about the sources he'd ''still'' be notable under #Basic criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per nom; non-notable youth player who fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE)

Comment: I have been largely involved in editing the article (it would have been very nice to have received a notification of its impending doom, but no matter), I see that the two previous comments are based upon  It should be noted that even if a subject fails , that "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". And that they may still be notable based upon a separate policy. The subject is only indisputably not notable if they fail all the relevant notability policies, just because they fail one is not a strong argument for their deletion. So although the subject fails , he passes the  and #Basic criteria. I will just make it clear why he passes  and #Basic criteria, To pass these the subject needs to have been the, uh, subject of at least two secondary sources, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/apr/28/arsenal-luke-ayling-scouting-report-steve-claridge and http://www.tribalfootball.com/luke-ayling-continues-winning-plaudits-arsenal-243989, clearly these two sources are independent and non-trivial coverage of the footballer. This means that he passes 2/3 of the relevant guidelines for notability (he passes:  and #Basic criteria, but fails ). Again I stress that failure of  does ''not'' mean that the subject is not notable. I quote from #Additional criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATH||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:ATH||WP:BIO)

Comment: as he fails notability for sportspeople at . Sources are hardly extensive enough for him to satisfy . Removing all the Arsenal related fansites/blogs, one article in the Guardian about seeing him in one youth cup match and a few short paras on "tribalfootball" doesn't pass notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATH||WP:N)