Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Polk

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. Can be userfied etc. on request. Sandstein 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Polk

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP on the grounds that he will play for Portland Timbers. However, there is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NSPORT prematurely in anticipation of future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace There's no policy or consensus-based reason for this article to be kept. However, as he is signed to Portland Timbers short of a life-threatening injury, it's inconceivable that he won't either be playing there, or in their fully-professional reserve squad Portland Timbers 2 shortly, and then we'd just have to recreate the article. It's really a waste of everyone's time to be trying to delete players during pre-season, when we are only going to have to recreate them shortly, rather than just having some WP:COMMONSENSE and waiting a couple of weeks to see how things play out. As such, the article is best moved to draftspace to allow it to develop before it's moved back in a few weeks. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace - It is likely that the subject will play in a WP:FPL this season, and moving to draftspace is a viable alternative to deletion. Once he plays, then the article can be updated and moved back to mainspace. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2016 (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.