Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Barada

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. Technical NFOOTY pass, but nothing to support this presumption of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Barada

[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)

Not independently notable outside of his company, non-notable soccer player, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject does meet WP:NFOOTBALL point 2. I created the article under not under the intention of 'corporate spam' instead following notability guidelines having made a professional appearance in English football/soccer for the club whose articles I frequently contribute to. Jasonakagary88 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has not played much and has been only a member and just one appearance doesn't makes him notable. If WP:NFOOTBALL point 2 is not clearly written, it needs to be detailed. Meeanaya (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one appearance in 3rd division is just not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has made one appearance in a fully professional league which is enough to pass WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – One appearance in the fourth-tier third division doesn't satisfy notability guidelines, and there don't appear to be any WP:GNG sources, just brief mentions [1] [2] [3], non-RSes [4] [5] [6] and a routine transfer report [7]. – Levivich 05:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing one match of professional football is no basis upon which to bypass the fundamental test of significant coverage in reliable sources. At the most NFOOTY provides for a presumption of notability. That presumption is displaced by the absence of significant coverage.—Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when he fails GNG no categorically, unless somebody like @Jasonakagary88: can extend on his Colchester career...? Giant Snowman 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He gets a single mention as a member of the Virginia Cavaliers national championship team in the Congressional Record. Otherwise he shows up in databases like Hugman's for his single appearance in the English fourth-tier. Nothing that suggests the article will satisfy the GNG or that this person is notable for his footballing career. Jogurney (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to stop allowing 1 appearance in a 4th tier league to make someone default notable. If we applied the same rules to baseball as to soccer, we would make everyone who played one game in AAA minor league notable. If we applied the same rules we apply to soccer to academics every academic who ever held a tenure track position at any university anywhere would be notable. We are no where near asseting that, and it makes no sense to assert inclusion criteria as broadly here. We need to consider removing some leagues from automatic inclusion, and I think we should up to above 1 game inclusion. Actors we require multiple significant roles in notable films, yet soccer players can get a pass with one game in a 4th tier league without even showing that their contribution to the game was notable. This makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO which outweighs the loophole in WP:NFOOTY. Josalm64rc (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything from Colchester or Notts County from 1994? That is old enough to be considered pre-internet. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 14 August 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.