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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Levivich 04:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as nom.Levivich 04:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment You can't cast a second delete vote, your AfD nomination is considered a delete vote.
Govvy (
talk) 09:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep –
Dayton Dutch Lions were a fully professional club during his appearances for the team, therefore he meets
NFOOTY guidelines.
UncleTupelo1 (
talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. (Nom consulted me prior to nomination) NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability. In this case it is clear we do not have SIGCOV, and not do we expect any future coverage here. Subject had played a bit in the lower rungs of the US minor leagues (pro in terms of play, but not competitive and hardly covered by anyone - the almost sole purpose of these minor leagues is player farming). To put the lack of interest in perspective - avg. atttnedance for the Dutch Lions is around 500. Has since retired. Absent sourcing establishing SIGCOV, this is a clear delete.
Icewhiz (
talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment The USL gets a reasonable amount of coverage? It's certainly not solely in existence as a "farm league". He played in a league that meets the NFOOTY guidlines, so not sure the team's attendance at the time comes in to it.
UncleTupelo1 (
talk) 23:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Does the USL get coverage? If so, produce in depth sources on this player (who did not play all that much). NFOOTY merely states which leagues are likely to meet GNG. This guy is borderline for NFOOTY (did not play that much, borderline league). If there were SIGCOV - producing 3-4 high quality, independent, reliable sources would be easy.
Icewhiz (
talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per prior consensus (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Sanogo among others) a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league is not enough to meet
WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails
WP:GNG as this article does. I could only find the local Patch article mentioned above in terms of non-routine coverage, but there's simply not enough there.
Jogurney (
talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which are lacking here (failing
WP:GNG) - such an improvement is unlikely - impossible even given sourcing quality required for a
WP:BLP. Keep by NFOOTY (merely presumption of GNG) means nothing for borderline NFOOTY players who are being challenged for not having anything approaching SIGCOV. Show us the sources, if you want it kept. At least 3-4 high quality in-depth sources.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (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.