Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Lyons

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lyons[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOI is not a WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFOOTY, and nothing else to make him notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Plenty of LOI players already have existing article's and Chris Lyons is already a prominent player in the league. (Optimistic Wikipedian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimistic Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other stuff exists is never a suitable argument to keep an article. If he is a prominent player, could you please show reliable sources providing significant, independent coverage. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2016 (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.