Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stone (footballer)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 May 19. The result of the deletion review was Withdrawn.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stone (footballer)

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

PROD contested. Claiming that the NASL season starts in 6 days. For the hundredth time, Wikipedia does not operate in the process of "he will be notable soon" per WP:CRYSTAL. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is unnecessary, and an absolute waste of everyone's time. WP:CRYSTAL says expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It's almost certain (barring tragedy) that Andrew Stone will be playing for Indy Eleven early in the season, as is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to their (now completed) pre-season. He started in their line-up in their final pre-season game [1] after he was prodded, even scoring a goal, and be featured in the post-game write-up. No, this doesn't make him notable, but an application of WP:COMMONSENSE rather than losing perspective and being too wrapped up in the rules would show that it does the project no harm, to leave the article alone for a few weeks, to see if the almost certain actually occurs. If something tragic happens, it's easy enough to delete the article at that time. However if the article is deleted, what invariably happens is that someone comes along within hours of the match, before there is a change to restore the article, and spends time rewriting it from scratch, rather than using their time better elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If something tragic happens". So in other words, it's not almost certain he'll be playing early in the season and this waste of people's time argument is not going to cut it. Also you keep giving us info that you admit doesn't make him notable and yet you're telling us to leave this article alone rather than following GNG and NFOOTBALL and relying on past consensus? The only thing that matters is right now, and right now this article still fails. – Michael (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of recreating this article in a few weeks, if not days? There's absolutely no reason to remove this article at this time, days before the start of the season, when he it is fully anticipated he's going to be playing a major role, if not starting. There are no firm rule that say this article needs to be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Despite the WP:CRYSTAL claims above, there is no indication that the player will feature in the first team squad. Clubs often play reserve team players in the "first XI" in pre-season friendlies, particularly against weaker teams when in reailty these players would not feature in regular league or cup competition. Current long-standing consensus is players who do not meet NFOOTY because they haven't played are non-notable in all but extreme cases and the cost of recreating is more than out weighed by the benefit of not having hundreds of youth player articles which we are assured by other editors are for players who will definitely play in the next few weeks but never do. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non starting players may well be used in early pre-season games, or on pre-season games of top-level European teams that don't go through much changeover during the relatively short off-season. But this isn't how lower-level North American teams with a relatively short playing season and high turn-over work. During the final pre-season games, playing the full match, is an attempt to get the players to match fitness. By playing the final pre-season games in their entirety, and scoring goals at the same time, it's almost certain that they will be on the pitch, or at least on the bench, in 5 days. And almost certain he will see playing time soon. Nfitz (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But its the "almost certain" element that is the issue. The fact is is that it is not "almost certain" from a WP POV, because there are no reliable sources that say this, just you. If he plays before the AfD, then great, I will change my opinion because he is then notable, if he doesn't then he is not notable. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Would you put money on him not playing soon? No, of course you wouldn't. You only have to look at the recent results to see that he'll be playing. More so than Kyle Hyland. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have put a rule that mentions stuff like that. As of now, he's not notable, so if we have to wait one week, we'll wait one week. Soopafred (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He made the roster at a fully professional level per NFOOTY's notability criteria. I'm disappointed that almost everyone argued to delete someone's article just a few days before the season started. This discussion is a black eye for Wikipedia. Royal broil 14:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, he has to play in a fully pro league match to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. No exceptions. Just being on the roster does not count. – Michael (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it count? There's no rule against it. He's appearing on the bench as a defender. It's not like he's the backup keeper. It's almost certain he'll appear in a match sooner or later. It's a waste of time to delete and then restore articles like this on a regular basis; and it's easy enough to delete, in the unlikely event that it becomes clear he's not about to get on the pitch. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that only applies players who have actually played. What may happen in the future is never grounds for notability. Until he actually plays, WP:GNG, which this article fails, is the only relevant notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH trump WP:NFOOTBALL. It's virtually assured we'll be undeleting the article soon. Why waste time deleting it? Nfitz (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:CRYSTAL trumps those. Giant Snowman 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:CRYSTAL trumps WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:NORUSH. But even if it did, I noted above that WP:CRYSTAL says expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It's almost certain (barring tragedy) that Andrew Stone will be playing for Indy Eleven early in the season, as is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to their (now completed) pre-season. He played extensively during the pre-season, including scoring a goal in the final game. And he was one of only 3 non-keepers on the bench not to play in the last game. He's not particularly young. He's not a keeper. There's no reason not to think he'll play relatively soon. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thank you Nfitz I created this article almost certainly knowing that he would be playing early in the season, all though he didn't play in Saturday nights season opener its almost certain he will play within the next 2 games based on his preseason statistics.Gamemaster eleven (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Gamemaster eleven:, why is it almost certain? It was almost certain earlier according to you and Nfitz and he didn't play. what has changed? He wasn't notable prior to the start of the season, you, and particularly @Nfitz: insisted that he would definitely be playing. He didn't and continues to be non-notable, yet you are both insisting that he will definitely play, requesting an indefinite stay of execution based on your wholly sbjective, and to date completely wrong reasoning. The fact of the matter is that no one should create any article on non-notable subjects. Until he plays, he is non-notable. You shouldn't have created this article at the moment per WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2014 (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.