Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Iro


 * 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. The only valid arguments to keep this article are based on WP:CRYSTAL, i.e., what he will do in the next future. As we cannot predict the future, notability guidelines for athletes and footballers easily overcome this. In case he will actually play a game in a fully professional league, please knock on my talk page and I will easily restore it. --Angelo (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Andy Iro

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league (friendly games do not count towards the criteria). Article has been deleted twice already following uncontested prods for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete yet to make a first-team appearance so non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE, college football in the US is not professional. The article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. English   peasant  21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. robwingfield «T•C» 08:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not weighing in on the current situation at hand, but I'd just like a somewhat reasonable explanation why MANY other MLS 2008 SuperDraft players have pages when they're in the exact same situation as Iro (bar Lapira's international experience).GauchoDude (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N. See here (reg req), here (reg req), here (reg req), here, here, here etc.  Also, someone explain my previous question posted right about this before deletion please kthanks.  In before "Note that past AfD closures made prior to the development of these criteria (5/2/2008) cannot be used as precedents for keeping articles" as my talk page clearly shows that myself and  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  talked about Iro's page before alllll of the other MLS 2008 SuperDraft pages before the huge FootyProject Debate.  Iro was blatantly left off the epic American/Euro fight to the death and has therefore resulted in multiple deletions.  tl;dr - show me what any 2008 superdraft player aside from Lapira has done to note significance, while still hold pages while Iros has been deleted multiple times GauchoDude (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for voting keep. All those players clearly failed WP:BIO and it was a shocking decision to keep them. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but all the sources about him surely should be a reason to keep since he's notable. Seems like you're picking on poor Andy Iro because you failed to include him in your original argument when it should have been.  And besides, since then Luke Sassano, David Roth, and Danleigh Borman (who wasn't even drafted in the freaking SuperDraft) all have pages yet, your Nazi regime leaves them untouched.  Get off Iro's balls already as it is clear you have a grudge or some other harbored resentment for him.  In b4 you put AfD's on them like you did last time I pointed this out with all your other failed MLS deletions.GauchoDude (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling me a Nazi is hardly aiding your cause and saying that I have a grudge against him seems a little paranoid. I didn't include Andy Iro in the original AfD because his prod was not contested so there was no reason to. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ban  Ray  13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep By the letter of the law, does he pass Wikipedia's notability guideline? Maybe, maybe not. But Columbus plays their first game of the season in exactly two weeks. He will almost certainly get on the field, if not be in the starting eleven. I don't think we ought to delete something on a technicality when it is just going to recreated a couple weeks later. Perfect example of when to use common sense. faithless   (speak)  10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd say your comment is a perfect example of crystal balling. If he makes an appearance for Columbus then the article can be undeleted.  At the moment, all we can say is that he has potential, but potential does not confer notability.  robwingfield «T•C» 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'd say, indeed I did say, that this is a fine example of when to ignore that rule. faithless   (speak)  10:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep MLS and US soccer has a different structure in many ways than the structure in most other countries -- namely that youth development organizations are completely independent from professional clubs. Most of the players in the MLS SuperDraft have enough talent to have made first-team debuts if they had been in a traditional European set-up.  I agree with faithless in saying it's worth it to keep them around for a few weeks.  If a few guys fall through the cracks, never play, don't sign a contract, etc -- by all means let's delete them.  But I don't think an aggressive deletionist policy is appropriate in this sense. --Balerion (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - no harm to keep it up for 2 weeks. If he does not start, then 86 it. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (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.