Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Morrison

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. The standard week has not yet passed but the consensus is plain and essentially overwhelming to the extent I am not sure what sort of argument could be made to generate any outcome other than keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Morrison

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player fails WP:NFOOTY. Draftify until first professional appearance. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: it is correct that he hasn't made a pro appearance, however due to his unusual move from Scotland to Germany he has attracted media attention which I would imagine amounts to WP:SIGCOV (at least in English-language publications and therefore English Wikipedia, I'd be surprised if he appeared in German Wiki on that basis as he is just another teenage academy import at Bayern so probably not much to say locally); indeed I added a BBC ref this evening (published today) which is of decent length and focuses fully on him and his Scottish teammate. But others may deem this insufficient and I wouldn't argue with their decision, hence 'weak'. Crowsus (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG which surpasses the NFOOTBALL failure. Giant Snowman 09:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG as above. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A fair range of references and some notability in particular re Club and the Guardian/BBC references. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:SIGCOV. GNG supersedes WP:NFOOTY, whether the subject meets that guideline is irrelevant when significant coverage about the subject exists. GauchoDude (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, and I believe he is relevant enough to warrant an article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, as noted in the comments above there has been the level of coverage about him that would meet GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG though fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as it isn't just routine coverage about him, it's multiple full articles dedicated to him. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In agreement with comments above, just about covers GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage, and if he really is one of the "60 best young players in the world" his debut will be soon enough.Muur (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2021 (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.