Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Ayling
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
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ATH||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:ATH||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)