Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Phillips (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. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Phillips (soccer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Claiming that there's no point deleting an article when a player has signed for a fully pro club shortly before the start of the season. For the hundredth time, that argument is unacceptable. The player has not received significant coverage nor has he played a fully pro league match, so the concern that the article fails GNG and NFOOTY remains valid. – Michael (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace It's an unacceptable waste of everyone's time proposing the deletion of the an article that we all know will be recreated in a few weeks. I have no comprehension why anyone would have such a desire to waste everyone's times with these ridiculous nominations, which while technically correct, will merely be reversed when the season starts. Simply move the article to draftspace - none of this red tape is necessary. It's not like there are any verifiablity issues, or doubt that he's going to be making appearances on this 3rd tier team. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's we? Do you have any evidence that "he'll be notable in the future"? No. So that's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:NOR. Also, Wikipedia never operates on "It's a waste of everyone's time, keep". – Michael (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing if the article is deleted and the player becomes notable in the future, we can always ask the person who deleted the article to put the page back up rather than having to recreate the entire article ourselves. – Michael (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that precludes the use of draftspace instead of deleting the article. Perhaps you should spend more of your time understanding policy, rather than wasting everyone's time unnecesssarily deleting articles! Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there IS something in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL that disallows keeping the article just because he will be notable in the future. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:CRYSTAL says. It's not a rule. But why raise that, as not one person has voted to keep the article? Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I have no objection to moving it to draft, but clearly this does not belong in the article namespace yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. We wait until something or someone is notable, then we create an article. Not the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – While not yet meeting WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG, he has signed to play for a new club in a WP:FPL and is very likely to see time on the pitch this season. Allow the creator of the article to hold it in userspace until NFOOTY is met, then it can be moved back to mainspace with the history still intact. My second choice is delete because notability requirements haven't been met yet. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Achievements also fall well short of WP:NCOLLATH. Could be notable in the near future but I am against usefying because we have to deal with articles all the time that people have created for players whom they assure us will be notable soon. I would not want userfy arguments to establish a consensus where all these such articles are userfyed by default which could create a situation where we have hundreds of stale non-notable players in a for of shadow-WP. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.