Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Hearn


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Conor Hearn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A 30-year-old player with 6 WP:NFOOTY games and no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Conor Hearn (SW) played 6 games in 2013 in the third-tier USL Pro. Search results return routine game reports. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom consulted me prior to nomination. Per his LinkedIn (which doesn't quite match Soccerway in terms of date brackets) was in Orange Country soccer club concurrent to being a high school coach, and has since retired (from 2016 at least). Per Soccerway played in 6 games. A few passing mentions in match reports (which by themselves - are fairly hard to come by for this team in 2013). NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, however in this case the subjects quite clearly does not meet GNG. Absent independent, reliable, in-depth sources this should be deleted. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG; technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, but there is past consensus at AFD that failing GNG is more important. GiantSnowman 07:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article about footballer who made a few appearances in the third level of US soccer but is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I found a handful of match reports and a signing announcement - nothing more than a name-drop. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It is high time we started deleting articles on people who clearly fail the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails "Basic criteria" ("A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") of Notability (sports) so obviously would fail WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL appears (or is sometimes argued) to give a lessor notability requirement, with a presumption (presumed notable) but #1 states: "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.", If this does not hold up to scrutiny then it would defer to the general notability criteria so is not in conflict. WP:SPORTSPERSON (Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "...so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". A "presumption" does not equate to inherent or even de facto notability (both a form of intrinsic notability), but still relies on the availability of significant coverage, and I can't see anyone legitimately arguing this to mean "no" or even "one" source. I feel it is hard not to run afoul of What Wikipedia is not (a policy) and Neutral point of view (also a policy and part of the Five pillars) if we settle for anything less than "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2019 (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.