Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tyrie

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

David Tyrie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Our article says he played 15

WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 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 passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – 15 appearances in a
WP:NFOOTY pass. On a side note, if the nom thinks that the page incorrectly states the number of appearances, they are free to change that number as per their sources. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:48, 7 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). Per our player himself - LinkedIn - he began working in Whitecap Technologies in June 2009 - concurrent with 8 of his games for the Pioneers per Soccerway.[1] (the Pioneers themselves self-relegated to the non-pro PDL in the following 2010 seasons), Tyrie (per himself) continued his business career after 2009. As such, this refutes the notion that USL D2 was a fully-professional league as this player was very clearly semi-professional. 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) 06:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets
WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NFOOTBALL? A source has been provided above showing that he was semi-professional during his brief stint in the Pioneers - as such - he was not a fully-professional league, per his own (and other semi-pros) participation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not pass our absurdly low inclusion criteria for footballers. Was never fully pro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 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) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 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
]

Keep subject passes
☎) 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How does this meet NFOOTY? What sources are there saying the league(s) he played in were fully-professional? Leviv ich 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 05:44, 24 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.