Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keegan Ayre
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. ChetblongT C 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Keegan Ayre
Another contested prod; Player that fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (Berwick Rangers F.C. are not professional) and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. robwingfield «T•C» 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom -- Alexf42 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ample reliable sources exist. As this is a likely search term at the very least this article should redirect to his father Garry Ayre. Catchpole (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - sorry to rain on your parade and end the sheep voting but Berwick Rangers are professional, out of all the teams in this league, there is only one which is not, Queen's Park F.C.. Please do not wikilawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.59.172 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- No they are not, they are semi-professional.[1] And even if they were professional, as you have noted, Queen's Park are not, so it is not a fully professional league. Calling using facts wikilawyering is a little over the top. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are professional now, that source is 7 years old. There is only one team in the entire Scottish League system that is not professional and they are Queen's Park F.C. as stated in the article. Are you saying it is OK to keep article on players in Division 3 (a division below Division 2 and fully professional) but not for players in Division 2 which is 90% professional. You do realise that if Queen's Park are relegated you will have to delete all the articles on Division 3 players, and if they are promoted you will have to delete all the articles on players in Division 1, and if they are promoted to the Premier League, you will have to delete all the articles on Premier League players, because in your reasoning, 'it isn't fully professional'. I find this absolutely dumbfounding wikilawyering,process wonkery and a bad-faith nomination. The policy of Wikipedia has always been to use common sense - please read WP:UCS and WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.5.169 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- "There is only one team in the entire Scottish League system that is not professional" - so East Stirlingshire's players are fully professional on their infamous wages of £10 per week are they? Houses must be reeeeally cheap in Falkirk...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are professional now, that source is 7 years old. There is only one team in the entire Scottish League system that is not professional and they are Queen's Park F.C. as stated in the article. Are you saying it is OK to keep article on players in Division 3 (a division below Division 2 and fully professional) but not for players in Division 2 which is 90% professional. You do realise that if Queen's Park are relegated you will have to delete all the articles on Division 3 players, and if they are promoted you will have to delete all the articles on players in Division 1, and if they are promoted to the Premier League, you will have to delete all the articles on Premier League players, because in your reasoning, 'it isn't fully professional'. I find this absolutely dumbfounding wikilawyering,process wonkery and a bad-faith nomination. The policy of Wikipedia has always been to use common sense - please read WP:UCS and WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.5.169 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No they are not, they are semi-professional.[1] And even if they were professional, as you have noted, Queen's Park are not, so it is not a fully professional league. Calling using facts wikilawyering is a little over the top. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I thought U21 teams counted towards notability? Canada don't have a U21 team, but he's listed here as a U20 player which is the equivalent - google shows he's been playing at this level for two years now. It seems to me that the article doesn't need deleted? 88.104.176.110 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, turns out there's a U23 side I wasn't aware of. However, he's been named in the squad [[2]] for the qualifiers which start in two weeks or so - so again, with definite notability just round the corner, is there a real need to delete the article? 88.104.176.110 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL applies here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, turns out there's a U23 side I wasn't aware of. However, he's been named in the squad [[2]] for the qualifiers which start in two weeks or so - so again, with definite notability just round the corner, is there a real need to delete the article? 88.104.176.110 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
*Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN, fails WP:BIO#Athletes, just about passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria, so in this case, especially as the league is almost entirely pro, I think we can make an exception and keep the article. John Hayestalk 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Can you provide a source that confirms that the league is "almost entirely pro", because as far as I'm aware it isn't anything of the sort..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just been having a very cursory look around and Cowdenbeath are certainly semi-pro (their website lists the players' day jobs), Queens Park are of course amateur, Ayr United's website lists most of their players as "contract: part time", that's at least 30% of the league that's not fully pro..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source that confirms that the league is "almost entirely pro", because as far as I'm aware it isn't anything of the sort..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- As the source above was rubbished for being seven years old, here's a source from 2008, from the Times, no less. Berwick Rangers manager Michael Renwick is quoted as follows:
| “ | As a manager, dealing with part-time players and trying to get them to work my way has been frustrating, difficult. I only had three years part-time as a player but I trained every day. That’s the type of standard I’ve got. I only train with my players for three or four hours and that’s not enough to play at the level we’re playing: we’re playing against three full-time outfits in the second division. Some players work away, some have families and find it hard to fit in more training. | ” |
- There ya go - there are only three full-time teams in Scottish Div Two ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought they were pro, in which i case i withdraw my keep, and change to Delete John Hayestalk 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, recreate if he plays for a professional team ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Chris and number (to replace my previous keep) John Hayestalk 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:FOOTYN, Berwick are not fully professional English peasant 01:29, 1 March 2008 (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.
