Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland


 * 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   no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Kyle Hyland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested. Concern was article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what do I need to fix for my article to not be deleted. I thought I fixed the issues? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL read Your First Article for more info. JMHamo (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think It meets all the criteria in the General notability guideline, how does it not??? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NFOOTBALL... He's not played senior first team football for a team in a fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I will fix that Right Now, I understand what I need to do now. Gamemaster eleven (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Did I fix what Was requested??? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

hello is any one going to respond? Gamemaster eleven (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG with no coverage at all in reliable sources as far as I can see. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL with no appearances in a fully pro league - claim in the article that he will definitely play in 8 day's time is unsupported crystal balling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Chris, 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. Pure WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Well I guess while your at it go ahead and delete my other article Andrew Stone (footballer) it problaby violates this stuff to I don't even care just delete it!!! Gamemaster eleven (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and I think it's snowing in here. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC) struck delete in view of Nfitz's comment below. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 Kyle Hyland 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  after the AFD was created.  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. At a bare minimum we should Hold on until the team announces the starting line-up for the first match of the season, in only a few days. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is no indication from any reliable source that he is bound to play, this is merely your subjective assumption. As has been noted in many AfDs previously, your "he's not notable now, but let's see if he continues to be non-notable before deleting" is inherently flawed, primrily because it is an admission, as you say explicitly above, that the subject is not notable, but this somehows leads to a "keep" !vote. Current consensus is that no article should exist except in extreme cases for footballers who have not yet played either a game in an FPL or senior international football. The cost of recreating articles is deemed to be more than outweighed by the benefit of not having hundreds of youth team player articles which we are assured are for players who will begin playing at a notable level any minute now, but who never do. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm merely saying hold on until the season starts, in only 5 days. There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And then if he doesn't play then the article hangs around. WP:NORUSH is an essay, and is overridden by the long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY, that you actually need to have played at least one game in order to be notable. The correct procedure, and one which the vast majority of editors adhere to is to wait until an individual is notable before starting articles, not anticipate notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that is the correct procedure. But if the article exists, there's no point deleting it within hours of the season starting. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep there seems to be no compelling reason to hasten to delete this so that it can quite possibly be re-created in a few days. Northern   Antarctica   ₵  16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nfitz and Northern Antarctica. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This policy working is getting ridiculous, with all the fpl stuff thrown around. The bottom line is that he was signed by a team in a fully professional league even if he hasn't actually played. With the sourcing he has, he is notable. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just a routine source, he hasn't received any significant coverage nor played in a fully pro league match. So therefore he's not notable. – Michael (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The season starts tomorrow. Why are we still having this discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask you the same thing since you guys aren't relying on past consensus regarding non notable footballers. Saying that "he'll make his debut tomorrow".  Do we know for sure he'll make his debut tomorrow?  No.  Do we know for sure he'll play at all?  No.  If he makes his debut tomorrow, then I'll drop my nomination, but Wikipedia does not operate in the process of "he will be notable soon". – Michael (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. There's a test called WP:CRYSTAL that stops the creation of articles which are pure guessary, but something like this, where it's almost certain we'll be recreating the article shortly, passes. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No it does not. Until he actually plays, he still fails the guidelines. – Michael (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (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.