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 After talking to Fenix down, I am closing this Afd and will renominate the players separately. I am not going to copy comments, I hope closing administrator(s) will take the delete votes into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Reinberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the deletion discussion was closed NPASR due to the removal of the USL Second Division from WP:FPL, I am renominating this article for deletion.

It is disputed that the player meets the criteria for footballers for playing in a fully-professional league, and it's further disputed that they meet the basic criteria for inclusion due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources despite being a contemporary player in English speaking nations.

I am also bundling the other 8 under the same rationale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notifying the participants of the previous AfDs, Levivich, Shotgun pete, 21.colinthompson, Icewhiz, GiantSnowman, Jacona, Reywas92, StraussInTheHouse, Mosaicberry, Smartyllama, Jogurney, Sandals1, Lubbad85, and Papaursa, so that they can add their thoughts to the discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort notices
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort notices

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They fail NFOOTY. More importantly, they fail GNG. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption there will be SIGCOV - however in all these cases (English speaking country, bio during internet age with sources expected to be online) - a simple search shows there is close to no coverage (and what coverage there is, is often of college play, coaching a high school, assistant coaching in college - and not much of that - the minor league stint is ignored). When GNG is challenged, citing a presumed coverage SNG - NFOOTY - is not sufficient.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - the bundling is completely inappropriate given that the question here is going to be GNG. I suggest the nominator withdraws the bundled articles ASAP and we deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Also wish to note that we wouldn't even be here if the nominators of the AFDs the first time around had reached consensus to remove USL Two from FPL before mass-nominating a bunch of articles... Giant Snowman 06:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to unbundle - we routinely assess GNG in bundles for similar subjects - in this case a bunch of USL D2 players who received nothing close to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True that NFOOTY was not mentioned by GiantSnowman, so I collapsed that bit.
Passing NFOOTY is of no significance if SIGCOV does is shown not to exist - NFOOTY is merely a presumption of coverage, nothing more. The nominations were entirely correct - as SIGCOV did not exist for any of them. "Keep by NFOOTY" !voted are not policy based (and in particular not so when they are based on the WP:FPL essay which has no policy standing what so ever). A "keep by NFOOTY" !vote may have some merit for a 1950s era player for which many sources aren't available online - for subjects for which it is clearly evident that there are no sources (given that most sources possibly covering should be online) - it is a specious !vote. Articles on non-notable subjects should not be created to being with. There is no need to unbundle - we routinely assess GNG in bundles for similar subjects - in this case a bunch of USL D2 players who received nothing close to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Re-read what I said. Where did I mention NFOOTBALL? If the articles were nominated separately then I would likely !vote 'delete', but based on the length of discussions on the previous AFDs, that x 8 here would be a nightmare. What's the rush in getting these deleted? Take your time and do it properly. Giant Snowman 09:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True that NFOOTY was not mentioned by GiantSnowman, so I collapsed that bit.

Passing NFOOTY is of no significance if SIGCOV does is shown not to exist - NFOOTY is merely a presumption of coverage, nothing more. The nominations were entirely correct - as SIGCOV did not exist for any of them. "Keep by NFOOTY" !voted are not policy based (and in particular not so when they are based on the WP:FPL essay which has no policy standing what so ever). A "keep by NFOOTY" !vote may have some merit for a 1950s era player for which many sources aren't available online - for subjects for which it is clearly evident that there are no sources (given that most sources possibly covering should be online) - it is a specious !vote. Articles on non-notable subjects should not be created to being with. There is no need to unbundle - we routinely assess GNG in bundles for similar subjects - in this case a bunch of USL D2 players who received nothing close to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what I said. Where did I mention NFOOTBALL? If the articles were nominated separately then I would likely !vote 'delete', but based on the length of discussions on the previous AFDs, that x 8 here would be a nightmare. What's the rush in getting these deleted? Take your time and do it properly. Giant Snowman 09:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per GiantSnowman. This is going to be a mess if we do it this way. Do it right or don't do it at all. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per GiantSnowman. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled the discussions because my BEFORE searches convinced me the likelihood of any sources turning up to be somewhere between "unlikely" and "snowball in hell". If I am pleasantly surprised, I'll be more than happy to strike any for nomination where sources did turn up, but I think it's premature until that happens. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep I've found at least some coverage on Reinberg and no coverage on another player in the list (Brown, picked at random.) Whether Reinberg passes WP:GNG isn't clear to me, but it's clear enough to have separate discussions about all of these players. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Obviously as the previous nominator of these articles, I think they should be deleted because they don't meet GNG or NFOOTY. Here's the thing about this batch and GNG: before they were nom'd, Icewhiz and I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. Then these noms were open for 18 days – relisted twice – and the total number of sources brought forward was zero. Not one source. Nobody even tried to argue that any of these articles meet GNG. I don't see the benefit in noming these individually. For the "procedural keep" voters above, I'd ask that either you post some sources that might be sigcov for at least one of these articles, or else let's not waste time with a re-nom, let's agree these articles don't meet GNG and move on. Leviv ich 06:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about procedural keeps, but I do believe that any article based solely on a player playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY and that none of those articles that I voted on previously met the GNG. That is why I voted delete on a number of them.Sandals1 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matt Langton - per my comments at the previous AfD. I haven't had the change to evaluate these other articles yet. Jogurney (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep No closing admin can justify mass deletion of articles of varying individual notability. Do it right, or not at all.BabbaQ (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be an initial series of procedural keep votes based on a fear that this AfD would become very complicated with editors arguing that so-and-so meets GNG but so-and-so doesn't. That has demonstrably not happened. Furthermore, bar one nebulous comment from one editor that they "found some coverage" on one of the players and another late comment that these players are "of varying individual notability", there has been nothing provided by any editor to support GNG for any of these players to even the lowest level.

I initially closed a number of these as no consensus for the reason that changes in consensus on the level of full professionalism in the league in question part way through the AfD had meant a number of editors who had initial commented might have reason to change their opinions and that the chance should be given for them to do so.

To my mind, following AfDs lasting several weeks, there is consensus that NFOOTY is not satisfied and nothing has been presented that comes close to satisfying GNG for any players. The keep votes currently have no merit because the predicted chaos has not occurred, whilst the delete votes reiterate the same arguments from the previous discussions.

It's time editor's voting keep either put up or shut up and show GNG if they can for any other these articles. If that is not forthcoming and no other admin takes action, I am inclined to close this discussion as Delete all, as the delete votes are the only ones currently with any validity.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did Fenix just tell me and others to shut up? There is no merit in of to mass delete a number of individual articles. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same league, same country, same period, similar profile (college, short D2 stint, other non-notable stuff), same lack of sources (in articles - and outside them). This is a good bundle... Now do you have sources establishing SIGCOV for any of these articles?Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put up or shut up is a common turn of phrase. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FD, your comments are wholly inappropriate, and consensus is clearly that the articles should be kept and individually relisted so that GNG can be explored in detail. Giant Snowman 14:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they are, not just because it is only 5-3 in favour of a procedural keep - hardly "clearly", but more importantly that the procedural keep was on the basis that there would be chaos created by people voting to keep some and delete some. This has not happened, my assessment therefore of the keep votes is that they are weak. The stronger arguments are in favour of deletion and I have relisted to encourage editors to actually engage with discussion around GNG. It would be helpful if someone like yourself could indicate some sources that suggest GNG for a number of these players to show that it would be best to close and nominate individually. The simple fact that you don't like a bundled nomination is not a sufficient reason in itself, you need to show why it would be better to close and renom individually. Where are the sources that would show this to be a worthwhile exercise? This has been going on for weeks now so I am presuming that you and / or other editors have found some? I'm not sure why no one has actually presented any evidence to support their views. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - What's wrong with being thorough? Why the rush to mass delete articles? Individual nominations, for me, are always the best case scenario as it leads to more care being taken with the articles involved. If they then all end up being voted for deletion, guess what, they'll be deleted. There is no need to rush, deletion will come if it's correct. R96Skinner (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why I relisted the AfD, we have had weeks of discussion around these player individually beforehand as well as now. Simply saying "keep" because there is more than one nomination is not a reasonable argument. Repeatedly over a number of weeks editors have stated that these players are not notable per GNG, I am giving those who are voting "procedural keep" one last chance to provide evidence of notability for any of these players. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 3 May 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.