Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Joshua travagli

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Speedy delete, recreation of deleted page, non-notable, wrong space. Laser brain  (talk)  06:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Joshua travagli


Procedural deletion. This does not belong in the Wikipedia namespace. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as re-creation of Joshua Travagli, which was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Joshua Travagli. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . Deleted at AfD due to WP:TOOSOON; this is not a reason for deletion from DraftSpace.  I advise  to introduce himself at User:Ynaps, and in particular to explain his interest and any connections to Joshua Travagli.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:TOOSOON argument from the last afd doesn't really make sense any more. At the time, Travagli was signed to Fort Lauderdale Strikers, but had not played any matches for them. Since the club plays in the fully-professional North American Soccer League, a single appearance for Strikers would have meant that Travagli would meet WP:NSPORT. At the time, it was thought that sooner or later he would make his debut and therefore meet the relevant notability guideline. This didn't pan out. A week after the discussion was closed, Travagli left Fort Lauderdale and has been playing at the semi pro level in Europe ever since. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean: Time has proven that this person was not and will not be notable? On the basis of the nomination, the page should be moved to draftspace, Draft:Joshua Travagli.  I am not comfortable with G4, but am partial to supporting deletion due to deletion reasons at AfD being strengthened with time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More or less. I think there is still a chance that he might become notable at some point, but it's significantly less like likely than it seemed a year ago. During the afd it looked like it was just a matter of time until he meet the criteria in WP:NSPORT. This is no longer the case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the AfD and your explanation here, I am well persuaded to support the AfD decision. Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.