Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Varga

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) 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Varga

Zach Varga (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)

Played 5

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

WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.
• Keep – 17 appearances is clearly enough to pass
  WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As this individuals admits that he was
  WP:FPL - is merely that of an essay - e.g. zilch) - and besides not meeting GNG (the more important criteria) - this is a NFOOTY fail as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - clearly passes
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @GiantSnowman: - how does a semi-pro player, playing in a league with several other semi-pro players, pass NFOOTBALL? (which itself merely creates a presumption of GNG). NFOOTY states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable." - as this player was employed by Fairmont Supply Company for the entirtity of his sting with the Riverhounds he was semi-pro, and any game he was involved with was not a game between two teams from "fully-professional leagues". Note that professional (receiving pay) does not mean fully-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  He played in a fully-pro league. A handful of semi-pro players doesn't affect that; same with a non-professional youth player playing in the Premier League, for example. GiantSnowman 07:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  A source backing that up?

  WP:FPL, which is a mere essay, cites USL itself (not a RS) which says - "USL SECOND DIVISION One level below the USL First Division lives in the USL Second Division, the foundation of professional soccer in the United States .... The league is the birthplace of professional players that aspire to reach the highest-levels of the game, while providing affordable family entertainment within their city" - which actually ("foundation of professional soccer" and "birthplace of professional players") doesn't even support "professional" (though AFAICT USL D2 did pay a wage to everyone) - let alone "fully professional" (players don't work elsewhere). USL D2 was mainly a player development league - a large chunk of the rosters in the league were post-college players on rookie contracts who played for around a single season. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 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) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]