From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sawyer Gaffney

Sawyer Gaffney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP about an amateur footballer who played 14 minutes in a single United Soccer League match on an academy (non-professional) contract more than one year ago. Although there is concensus that the USL is a fully-pro league, his substitute's appearance was as an amateur and we have a long-standing consensus that a very minimal amount of play such as this doesn't meet the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, although I found one decent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the other coverage of this footballer is routine and doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. A PROD was removed on the grounds that the article satisfies NFOOTBALL, but I don't believe that is accurate (particularly in spirit). Jogurney ( talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney ( talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:FOOTY and the subject is 20 years and just made his debut and see no reason in deleting it after he has made his debut and is currently playing. SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 20 years old. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I believe this is a unique situation where a footballer who is an amateur played in a "fully-pro league." Also, we have consistently determined that NFOOTBALL should be applied on a common sense basis when a footballer so narrowly crosses the bright-line (most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al-Khethiri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). Note that this footballer hasn't begun a professional career at this point, so to say he "is currently playing" is misleading. Like most amateur footballers, we have no reason to believe he will ever sign a professional contract until the point that it actually happens. Jogurney ( talk) 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Question Isn't the second tier a semi-pro league? Wouldn't he fail NFooty? Govvy ( talk) 22:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The USL is listed at WP:FPL. I'm skeptical (why does a fully-pro league allow amateurs to participate in matches?), but that's a discussion for the Talk page at FPL. Jogurney ( talk) 14:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Show Cause Did my own search and only good source I found was this - [1]. Since they player is a recent player, barely meets the SNG, and plays in an English-speaking country, I think it's reasonable to ask to see sources as opposed to just presuming they exist since they will take a while to find. RonSigPi ( talk) 00:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reply Seriously is that all you got to go on? If that was the case I would also have a footy article on here for playing for Hatfield Town! But as it stands, the article fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Govvy ( talk) 10:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Govvy, what? I just said we should need to see sources and not just presume. That is why I said show cause - subject meets the SNG, but let's not just presume sources exist, but lets actually make an effort to find them since he is an English-speaking based player that is recent so should have a number of sources. I found one article, so that is a start. If we find some more, then I will say keep. If not, then I will say delete. I tried and showed what I could. If nothing more is produced, then its pretty clear we delete. Did you not understand what I said or understand what show cause means? RonSigPi ( talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ RonSigPi: SNG? That's just a redirect, are you referring to GNG? He still fails and also the club seems to operate as semi-pro and doesn't sound like they operate full professional. Govvy ( talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
No, referring to WP:NFOOTY. He meets it. But it is just a guideline. Considering the reasons I gave, I think we need to show the subject meets GNG. As of now, with only the one source I found, subject does not. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
When did you say that? And I am not even sure Richmond Kickers are operating as a fully pro club, if anything it sounds like they operate in a semi-pro format and if that's the case and some evidence points towards that there are a number of clubs in the second tier of US football operating in this format brings to front that tier two is not truly a professional league, there for he would fail NFooty. Also, are you Pharaoh of the Wizards? Govvy ( talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Govvy ??? No, I am not Pharaoh of the Wizards. Please explain that logic. Pharaoh of the Wizards said keep. I said we need to find sources, as of now we have not found them, so delete until it is shown otherwise. Why would you think the same editor would give a first comment for keep and a second one for delete? RonSigPi ( talk) 12:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment SNG including WP:FOOTY, WP:NCRIC, WP:NHOCKEY , WP:NBASKETBALL are meant for this purpose exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects for example just after making there debut and the threshold is also Have appeared in one game is clearly mentioned in all SNG a Football , basketball ,Hockey or Cricket player will not immediately pass WP: GNG after appearing in just in one game in all cases.They are meant to allow a grace period to meet GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I still don't understand why you use SNG that jumps to the CAT, NFooty is there to cover the player, GNG is the primary guideline above it. You only have to define those two elements to pass of fail! It's been pretty straight forward, I question if the second devision is truly pro, if not, then the player fails NFooty. The article still fails GNG!. Right now, because I question the legitimacy of the second div being fully pro. That in turns leads me to *delete the player article, which currently is failing GNG. Govvy ( talk) 23:13, 21 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sawyer_Gaffney&oldid=1138342740"