Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Lethlean

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 no consensus. There is no consensus even a week after this got relisted. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lethlean

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appearance in the FFA Cup, which means he meets NFOOTBALL, as they were appearances in a competitive match between two teams from WP:FPL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our sourcing does not meet GNG. The sports SNGs are very clear subjects must meet GNG. This has been upheld at RfC. It is high time that editors start respecting this decision, and where they ignore it, closing administrators should ignore their imput because it does not conform to Wikipedia policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as the only coverage of him is in indiscriminate databases, and in news published by his team. BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. And I'm going to add, I sincerely hope no closing administrator ever chooses to ignore an editors input, while acknowledging that all arguments for these nominations should be based on WP policy. We're a community here, and we're to assume good faith. Spf121188 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- When editors try to use policies in violation of what they actually say, their votes should be discounted. In the recent discussion to delete the sports SNGs, many people explicitly said that this needs to be done, and that one reason to keep the sports SNGs is that administrators can and should explicitly ignore the votes of people who misues the sports SNGs to try to keep articles that do not pass GNG, and thus do not actually pass the sports SNGs. When we see a clear pattern, we have a right to identify it and speak out against it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I've always been more inclined to try and point others in the right direction, try to help as much as we can. We, as editors, have to try and always stay cool when the editing gets hot. But again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Which is why I !voted delete. Spf121188 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert You are very much misrepresenting the notability guidelines, which are NOT policies. NSPORTS also says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. So your "policy" is actually only a "rule of thumb". Furthermore, the long-standing consensus in this project, as you well know, is that articles can be created for young footballers at the point they meet NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)xx[reply]

Keep - As the other KEEP voter pointed out, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. He is in A-League professional team listed at WP:FPL and has played at least one game.Caphadouk (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played against A-League side Perth Glory FC in the FFA Cup therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NFOOTBALL as per above. Also meets long-standing consensus that articles can be created after first professional cap. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (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.