Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Williams (soccer)


 * 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. On the basis of a lack of SIGCOV. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Williams (soccer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The NASL was technically fully professional, but he played only 200 minutes in 8 appearances, mostly as a sub. The only sources are to Soccerway and the team's website, and I can't find any other WP:GNG-qualifying coverage - all I can find is transactional agate. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter - the NASL wasn't the best covered league in the world and from what I can tell, he doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with SF here. 200 mins of WP:NFOOTBALL isn't enough when GNG isn't met. In my own search, I found a couple of YouTube videos where he is interviewed and then some minor mentions on the NASL's own website, like this, I have no doubt that SF already did a much more comprehensive WP:BEFORE search than me. This article, in its current form, is just synthesised from the bare minimum stats coverage and there's no indication that it can be meaningfully expanded in any way from the sources available. I'll happily change my vote if significant coverage is brought to the discussion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage about the subject so he fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete despite passing WP:NFOOTY there does not appear to be any significant coverage of the individual, and they appear to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, as the player appears retired from the sport, they are unlikely to re-attain that presumption of notability. Since GNG ostensibly takes precedence over NFOOTY, I think deletion is the more clear decision. Jay eyem (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. GNG is the relevant criterion at AfD, not NFOOTY, and SIGCOV has not been demonstrated whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2021 (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.