Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caden Tolentino

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. Clear consensus that this individual isn't notable at this time; happy to provide a draftspace/userspace copy to anyone who cares for it (and any admin should feel free to provide such without consulting me). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caden Tolentino[edit]

[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)

Meets the too lax standards of WP:NFOOTY technically, but clearly fails the more generally accepted WP:GNG/WP:BIO standards. Not a single reliable, independent source (so not associated with the University or the football league) has given any significant attention to this young player so far (i.e. anything beyong mentioning his name or including him in a statistics database). May well become notable in the future, but not yet. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is 17 years and is currently actively playing hence see little point deleting it passes WP:NFOOTY.If the subject had retired or was injured it was different but see little point deleting someone currently actively playing in WP:FPL club and has last played in June 2021 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NBASKETBALL ,WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note subject is part of North Carolina FC first team for this season 2021 roaster and has played in June 2021 and the season is ongoing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 17 and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point. GiantSnowman 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the logical thing is to move this to draft, and to revive it if and when he becomes notable. Keeping and waiting a few years to see if he has ever played again is not the way notability works, and is not how new page patrol can work. The special "rules" for sports (notability should be met eventually, not now, but everything mus be sourced now or you will be blocked or topic banned) are becoming a plague. Work within the rules set out for enwiki as a whole, or start a separate footballfanwiki. Fram (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – I agree with Fram: this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. A pass of NFOOTY creates a presumption in favor of notability, but that presumption has been rebutted here since, as appears to be uncontested, he fails the GNG. Perhaps that will change; perhaps it won't. But we're not a crystal ball, and draftification preserves the content. There's no harm here in waiting until reliable sources have actually covered Tolentino in depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. NSPORT provides a rebuttable presumption of GNG that is meant to protect against automatic AfC failure. It also serves as a signal to other editors that they probably don't need to waste their time starting an AfD since they can assume coverage will show up during BEFORE. But given the poor track record of NFOOTY in predicting GNG, editors are rightfully scrutinizing footballer stubs more frequently and determining they don't meet GNG. The correct action in cases where someone does not have SIGCOV but might in the near future is to draftify; and in this case USL L1 does not in my opinion correlate strongly enough with in-depth coverage to even justify holding in draftspace, although there is no harm in moving there for a few months. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL is invalid here where a former academy player has made a single appearance in USL L1 but there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources (i.e., comprehensive failure of WP:GNG). Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no SIGCOV, and I'm not convinced that it's worth draftifying. The "appearance" was as a 97th-minute substitute. He barely took the field before the final whistle. As the article states, he's "committed to play college soccer at North Carolina State University", so he won't be actively playing in a WP:FPL club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2021 (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.