Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashleigh Townsend

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.

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) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Townsend

Ashleigh Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Our article says he played 39

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets

WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 meets
  WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, per reasoning above. /Julle (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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). According to www.soccer-elite.co.uk - he has since moved to on training for soccer-elite coupled with some semi-pro play. 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 from this time period are available online) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets
  WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: per consensus in
  WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly meets
  WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Given the change in status for the USL Second Division, how does he meet

WP:NFOOTY? Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete After the reassessment of the USL Second Division as not being fully professional, he does not meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet
  WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete He Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  09:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete, by four different admins: Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 06:05, 25 April 2019 (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.