Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucson Brown


 * 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. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Tucson Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Our article says he played 7 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, A pparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv&thinsp;ich  17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and the updated rationale by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he meets NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
 * Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination . Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This meets NFOOTBALL, per the guideline could be kept. This is because he played in a league that is considered fully professional, and so it is presumed sources must exist. But in reality, this league gets no significant coverage, so should we follow this circular reasoning of a flawed guideline? I can't hold my nose hard enough to keep the smell out, so I will not vote to keep.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline merely creates a presumption of notability - it actually states (at the top of NSPORTS) - "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. ..... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ...". Furthermore, while NFOOTY says " See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." - that "see a" doesn't not confer policy status on WP:FPL - which is an essay (and unlike NSPORTS - which I think would generally require a community RfC with wide participation to update - is updated on a much looser local consensus). Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet NFOOTY nor any other applicable guideline.Jacona (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92Talk 05:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not WP:GNG  Lubbad85   (☎) 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075.   SITH   (talk)   10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on how it meets NFOOTY? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per SITH. As contemporary footballers in an English speaking country, the lack of available sources override any presumption of notability from playing in a semi-professional league. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.