Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Toby

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. Feel free to contact me if his circumstances change. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Toby

Joseph Toby (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play for Orlando City SC, which is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Can always restore if he plays. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - as original PRODder; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Nominating editor has misrepresented the grounds for removing the prod. It wasn't because he will play, but because there's little point wasting time and resources deleting an article, that most likely will be validly recreated when the season starts in a few weeks. However, if y'all really want to waste everyone's time, it's a valid deletion ... but I once again fail to see some want so desperately to play WP:WHACAMOLE rather than showing some patience and WP:COMMONSENSE and simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens. I fail to see the harm in an aritlce does appearing a few weeks prematurely. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article can be restored at the click of a button when subject becomes notable, but at the moment he is not. JMHamo (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't restore at a click of a button. And why waste everyone's time with what is most likely a temporary deletion? Can just as easily argue that it can be deleted with a click of a button if he isn't even riding the bench in a few weeks. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• You can use WP:DRV when he's notable. JMHamo (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• And yet the last time I went to WP:DRV after a player whose article had been deleted had made a first-team start, there were complaints that wasn't an appropriate thing for WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Nfitz: - by that logic we should have an article on all FPL academy players on the grounds that they will probably play at some point in the next few years. Your second point makes no sense as you are basically saying "he's not notable now, but let's keep the article for a while to see if he continues not to be notable". Surely you understand that that is the exact opposite of what GNG requires?!? Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@JMHamo: You have completely failed to comprehend, and are misrepresenting my position. I have not said articles should be created for Academy players. This isn't an Academy player, this is a player who would be expected to be in the first team. I'm simply saying that there's no point wasting everyone's time by playing WP:WHACAMOLE for an article that will most likely be legitimately recreated within weeks when the season starts. To try and delete this article shows a complete lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, patience, and maturity. But go ahead anyway ... it's the complete waste of everyone's time I fail to comprehend. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the information contained within needs to be 100% accurate, especially for BLP articles. We do not make assumptions about the future. JMHamo (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• It does need to be 100% accurate. What's not accurate in the article? It says he plays for Orlando City. So does Orlando City's website [1]. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Clearly fails notability guidelines. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Michael (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:GNG with media articles about him. [2] [3] [4]. There's more routine stuff over the years, documenting his history, but wouldn't establish GNG ... [5] [6][7]. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – Nfitz, you seem to have a real difficulty understanding GNG. A report from a club signing him (not secondary) and two other reports from one source (not multiple) do not meet a guideline which specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (original wording, bolding mine). WP:ROUTINE coverage is not a criteria for inclusion of material, so please don't bring it into these various discussions. GNG is not met here, so delete. C679 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Cloudz679. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.