Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tenorio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Tenorio

[edit]

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

Patryk Tenorio (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)

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No significant coverage, never coached a fully-pro team BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I support this page staying up for several clear reasons.


1. It is hypocritical of NFOOTY to claim this coach is not with a "fully pro" team as the wikipedia entry for NISA clearly states its a professional league - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Independent_Soccer_Association
2. I find it highly suspect that entries pertaining to USL League 1 and USL Championship are left unquestioned when there are many sources - including myself who is involved in professional football in the U.S - that can tell you there are players on $0 contracts who only earn pay if they are rostered which goes against what apparently is considered "Professional" on wikipedia.
3. This team participates in the National Cup (US Open Cup); most recently being in the 2nd round vs. a USL Championship team.
4. GNG is fulfilled on this article via citations 4, 7, 12.
5. The following citations are reliable as they come from universities: 2,3,5,9
6. The coach in the article coached for and was director for SF City FC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_City_FC - if this is notable enough for a wiki page, how is the coach not considered notable enough to mention? With no coach, there is no team?
7. The University of San Francisco Dons Mens Soccer team is considered notable enough to have a wiki page and is a significant program within the U.S - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Dons_men%27s_soccer - again how is this considered notable but not the coach?
8. There are other coaches who have only coached college soccer in the united states with wiki pages such as - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Gunn - how are they left unquestioned and up on wikipedia given no appearances for a professional team occurred? (not passing NFOOTY) It seems there are very uneven guidelines followed on wiki.
9. My final comment is that I have seen and heard of many NISA related coaches, players, and teams being questioned on Wikipedia while the USL leagues are left unchecked. The USL is well known for trying to kill off competitors (NASL) and I feel its a little strange this keeps happening while the USL who runs perhaps less professionally then NISA at times - despite being 1 divisions higher - is left alone. Could this all be another ploy for USL to kill off more competitors? By getting rid of as many NISA related posts as possible? Futbol10p (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, has never been a head coach in a WP:FPL. Virtually a copy-paste, with slight changes, from here. To break down all the points from @Futbol10p: above: 1) The NISA is not listed at WP:FPL, and therefore it is of no relevance what is stated on the league's article. There are no sources shown to state that the league is fully professional. 2) WP:OTHER is not an argument against deletion. Stating your involvement in the game also brings up questions of a possible WP:COI. 3) Cup participation is irrelevant if the club is not in a WP:FPL. 4) Neither source four or seven is directly about Tenorio, he's just quoted in them. He literally does not appear in ref 12. 5) Although those may come from universities, they aren't enough to pass WP:GNG. Not independent of the subject. 6) First of all, he was an assistant for the club, not the head coach...second of all, notability is conferred completely separately for clubs and individuals. 7) Exact same as number six. Assistant coach, not the head coach. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. 8) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, Gunn meets WP:NFOOTY by playing in the A-League and meets NCOLLATH by winning multiple coach of the year honors and three national championships as a coach. 9) Absolute conspiracy theory with no sources to back it up. Even bolder considering that the NISA has lost three teams (two folded) before even completing a full season.
(Sorry this is so long. If anyone would rather I address these at the user's talk page, feel free to notify me and delete all these points.) Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • appreciate the detailed response; my comments as follows: The distinction between a HEAD coach vs. Assistant has no bearing on WP:NFOOTY guidelines as it only states the need to be a MANAGER which is not specific to a head coach or assistant. In general, a "Coach" is not the same as a "Manager" - see following; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manager_(association_football) - Also stating that the article is a copy paste with slight changes calls into question the entirety of Wikipedia and is a contentious and misleading statement. Everything on Wikipedia is a copy-paste with slight changes otherwise there would be no need for citations and wikipedia would be creating original content, akin to a media/news or publishing company. Without referencing outside media or citing existing work - how is information created within wikipedia? Citation is essentially copy-pasting that is acceptable because the original source is referenced.
1. Here is a link to an official document from the United States Soccer Federation provisionally approving NISA league as D3 Professional - http://www.ussocceragm.com/book-of-reports - page 91 on 2020 Book of Articles. Also saying that the NISA article that the general public can access and review, is not relevant because its lacking listing on WP:FPL is dubious as it questions the legitimacy of wikipedia as a whole. The argument using @Keskkonnakaitse basis would mean that unfactual things are allowed to be posted on wikipedia and should just be disregarded because a mod said so. Also apart from the USL's own websites there are no other sources proving USL to be sanctioned by USSF. Strange that NISA is in question with an official document from the federation proving its legitimacy but not USL.
2. How are articles on Wikipedia created without involving subject matter experts on them? That would mean that COI is rampant on wikipedia per your argument or that Wikipedia lacks legitimacy with only non-subject matter experts creating and commenting on articles. This is a weak claim and sets a precedent that only people not involved in football can speak about football matters or articles.
3. Again, contradictory here that a club is not relevant because its not in WP:FPL even though it clearly participates in a competition deemed relevant for a clubs inclusion in WP:FPL. Here is a schedule posting of LA Force's participation in the US Open Cup posted via the United States Soccer Federations own website, see "West Region" - https://www.ussoccer.com/us-open-cup. Note this is also the first round PROFESSIONAL clubs are included.
4. Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Both citations mention Tenorio but are not required that he be the main topic. Also who determines what is trivial? What is wikipedia's definition of a trivial mention? This seems largely undefined and left to any reader's or editors discretion. If you review Tenorio's involvment via the SF City FC website (archives) its easy to connect that he was a coach for the game as well since he was employed by the club during this time period.
5. Universities are accepted as reliable sources and their page on Tenorio are not identified as such - advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or related to the subject's website - which does not exist. It is a bio on a hired staff member - not to be confused with an autobiography. These are written and prepared by college marketing departments not written by coaching staff though they may approve its release online.
6. Again insistence on Assistant vs. Head coach has no bearing on the argument. A coach is a coach of a team and is involved in decision making regardless of the Head or Assistant distinction. Also WP:NCOLLATH clearly states in an example that head coaches or assistant coaches can be referenced. The line used "Well-known" as a distinction is also baseless - who determines who or what is "well known"? The media, editors, general public? CNN? God himself? Lastly to add, winning the WCC Conference and entering the second round of the D1 NCAA Tournament are indeed considered "a major NCAA Division I record" within the collegiate sports realm. If every team achieved these feats easily, nothing would be major in collegiate sport competitions; there is a reason only a limited amount of teams from Division 1 are selected for the tournament.
7. Same as #6 - WP:NCOLLATH allows for head coaches AND assistants. Actually does not fail WP:NCOLLATH so long as assistant coaches are used in the example provided by Wikipedia itself.
8. This is a fair point and have no opposition to this.
9. This is actually inaccurate and sounds like a condemnation of the league by editor; 1 team - Miami - moved to a new league. The other two teams have actually not folded and are currently "inactive" as listed and looking to rejoin the league in 2021 with increased investor support. This information is known if you are a football fan actively following the various leagues and news throughout the U.S. Another reason why subject matter experts should be more involved with Wikipedia entries and not just casual fans.
Futbol10p 14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GiantSnowman is a well respected contributor, I would not expect them to "retaliate" on any article much less take something personally on an article that clearly fails our notability standards. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald Trump is the President of the United States and I'd expect him to not tell people that drinking lysol is good for you but that happened... Am I supposed to just take your word on that? All I am looking for are arguments based on facts not opinions. Futbol10p 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm telling you you're casting aspersions by implying GiantSnowman has voted based on their own opinion and not on the content of this article. I can also guarantee they are not voting against you because you opposed them on a different article. I don't really care if you don't believe me, but we're getting to the point where you should refamiliarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. SportingFlyer T·C 05:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, there's not a reliable secondary source anywhere near this article, no others have been demonstrated, and it reads as if it was written by someone related to him or someone was paid to write it. Also fails WP:NFOOTY. Won't respond to any bludgeoning, either - this should be an easy delete unless other sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very easy to sit behind a screen and make sweeping comments about editors and if they are related or paid, etc. Just like I can say that SportingFlyer comments sound like they are written by an upset coach whom Tenorio defeated in a soccer match - there is no basis for these comments and do not add anything to the discussion at hand; speculative at best. I am not here to attack anyone but to question very real points being made on the legitimacy of the article and of the policing of posts relating to soccer across all of Wikipedia; too much of soccer is smoke and mirrors and how does anyone determine what is actually black or white? Especially non subject matter experts. That is not meant as an insult either but as a real point of contention. I would never make comments on posts relating to the NFL for example because I am nothing more than a casual fan.
  • Now that brings me to the real question I want to ask and would like serious responses to. How are these citations - #s 4, 7, 9 - not considered adequate secondary sources and what qualifies as an adequate secondary article to improve the legitimacy of this article? Thank you for your constructive input. Futbol10p 22:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should read WP:ASPERSIONS. The article goes into a level of detail you don't typically see regarding his fluencies and coaching licenses (all unsourced) which is why I suggested the COI. Regarding notability, in #4 (the SFGate blog) he is only asked to make a one-sentence quote, there is no coverage on him specifically. Being quoted in an article doesn't count for notability. #7 (Protagonist Soccer) is both a blog and interviewed him, neither of which count towards notability. Article #9 only mentions him once in an article that's entirely unrelated to him. We have WP:V, but we are a long ways off from notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not trying to denigrate anyone and aiming to create discussion based on valid counter arguments is all; apologies if you feel otherwise. Tenorio's fluencies and licenses are all mentioned in the following citations and public information; #s 3, 5, 6, 8, - again clearing up the idea there is COI. I do appreciate your feedback though and won't lose sleep if this article is deleted or not. More than anything the biggest takeaway for me is that NISA is not considered "fully professional" which I have taken to WP:NFOOTY to be addressed. Futbol10p 22:47, 12 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patryk_Tenorio&oldid=957522839"