- 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 both. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bryan Ciesiulka
- Bryan Ciesiulka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by creator without providing a reason. – Michael ( talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. – Michael ( talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 22:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete both - Neither for them has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both articles fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Both - Fail WP:NFOOTBALL as they haven't played in a Fully Professional League and they don't have any international caps. IJA ( talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment to article creator - Sandbox the articles until they become notable. IJA ( talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wait - there's little point wasting time deleting these players 3 weeks before the start of the season, when both are signed to a fully professional team, and both seem likely to be playing. USL squads don't sign midfielders to sit on the bench. Let's have WP:COMMONSENSE and not simply delete articles for a few days to satisfy a non-existent rule. If the closing admin really can't wait (why not, I don't know, because there is WP:NORUSH, move to draftspace. Nfitz ( talk) 03:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you review
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. –
Michael (
talk) 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing in that essay which says you can't simply wait a couple of weeks rather than toss
WP:COMMONSENSE out the window. I'm not arguing that the article not be deleted. I'm simply arguing that we should put a pin in the discussion for a couple of weeks. The example in that essay use an event 17 years in the future. We are talking about players that have recently been signed for a fully professional team that doesn't maintain either a reserve team or an academy, and short of sudden death or losing a limb will almost certainly be playing soon (ironically passing
WP:CRYSTAL itself). There's also nothing in the essay you cited that precludes moving the article to draftspace if the closing admin really wants to waste everyone's time by deleting articles that will recreated. It's certainly not a rule, but merely guidance which is then to be applied by intelligent humans, rather than blindly applied in a black and white bureaucratic manner.
Nfitz (
talk) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well the essay says "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future". So in other words, we have no idea what's going to happen. It's about right now. And right now, they don't meet the notability guidelines so they should be deleted. – Michael ( talk) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing in that essay which says you can't simply wait a couple of weeks rather than toss
WP:COMMONSENSE out the window. I'm not arguing that the article not be deleted. I'm simply arguing that we should put a pin in the discussion for a couple of weeks. The example in that essay use an event 17 years in the future. We are talking about players that have recently been signed for a fully professional team that doesn't maintain either a reserve team or an academy, and short of sudden death or losing a limb will almost certainly be playing soon (ironically passing
WP:CRYSTAL itself). There's also nothing in the essay you cited that precludes moving the article to draftspace if the closing admin really wants to waste everyone's time by deleting articles that will recreated. It's certainly not a rule, but merely guidance which is then to be applied by intelligent humans, rather than blindly applied in a black and white bureaucratic manner.
Nfitz (
talk) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you review
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. –
Michael (
talk) 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Nfitz's arguments are not illogical, but as noted above there is more that enough consensus in countless historic discussions that, although it is more work, the preference is to delete non-notable individuals and recreate upon meeting a guideline - essentially underlining the notion that we do not create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down ( talk) 10:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Has not played in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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.