Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Sassano
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 Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Luke Sassano
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the PDL is not professional). Also nominating David Roth (soccer) for exactly the same reason (pre-season friendly games do not count). пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete could quite possibly be notable due to their awards, but the article doesn't assert this. John Hayestalk 11:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fail WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability. robwingfield «T•C» 13:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both pn BanRay 11:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per my arguments and faithless' arguments on Andy Iro. Let's ignore the rules for a few weeks because the US development structure has rendered these guys technically non-notable for a few weeks before they make their professional debuts. It seems asinine to me to pursue an aggressive deletionist policy on MLS SuperDraft players when the very large majority of them will be restarted in a few weeks. If, in Mid-May, we want to aggressively root out the players who have slipped through the cracks by not signing a contract or who are mired in reserves, let's do that. But right now, it seems counter-productive and short-sighted to get rid of them. --Balerion (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain how that is not WP:CRYSTAL balling? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I cited WP:IAR for the sake of common sense. Would it KILL you to wait a few weeks before embarking on your Holy Deletionist Quest? Per this supplement to WP:IAR: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. The vast majority of these MLS SuperDraft pages will be recreated within a month. If we don't delete them now, we can later go in and find the minority that are not worthy of a page. What are we accomplishing here? --Balerion (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it would have been common sense to wait until the players were notable before creating their articles? I'm not in favour of the "wait and see" approach because of the precedent it would set... robwingfield «T•C» 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but they are here. There's a reason why so many of these articles have been popping up recently. Perhaps it's because the MLS structure doesn't fit well into WP:BIO guidelines that were designed with a fundamentally different system in mind? My question: Does deleting these articles -- 95% of which will be recreated within a month -- make Wikipedia better?. Common sense dictates that the answer to that question is no. --Balerion (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Saying the articles will be recreated is more WP:CRYSTAL balling. See the outcome of this AfD for a sensible closure based on policy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but they are here. There's a reason why so many of these articles have been popping up recently. Perhaps it's because the MLS structure doesn't fit well into WP:BIO guidelines that were designed with a fundamentally different system in mind? My question: Does deleting these articles -- 95% of which will be recreated within a month -- make Wikipedia better?. Common sense dictates that the answer to that question is no. --Balerion (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it would have been common sense to wait until the players were notable before creating their articles? I'm not in favour of the "wait and see" approach because of the precedent it would set... robwingfield «T•C» 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I cited WP:IAR for the sake of common sense. Would it KILL you to wait a few weeks before embarking on your Holy Deletionist Quest? Per this supplement to WP:IAR: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. The vast majority of these MLS SuperDraft pages will be recreated within a month. If we don't delete them now, we can later go in and find the minority that are not worthy of a page. What are we accomplishing here? --Balerion (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain how that is not WP:CRYSTAL balling? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is pointless busy work and this entire series of AFDs is a waste of otherwise useful time. --B (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The New York Times seems to cover him as a member of the New York Red Bulls.1, 2. Soccer America covers him as well - 3. Although he's a rookie, I think it makes sense to keep this article. BWH76 (talk) 10:57, 14 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.
