Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Bryce

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. All of the delete objections that raised WP:NFOOTBALL have been met as he has now played in the match and the nominator has as a result, switched their position. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Bryce

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Claiming that he will be making his pro debut shortly, which is a crystal ball violation. – Michael (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Michael, sorry for violating the crystal ball violation but it states in these articles [1] [2] that they are traveling with the team and that they are both gonna start for the team in the near future. If this deletion can just wait a while it is very likely it will happen that's why they were sent down. If not i'll just remake the page if he does end up starting or appearing in a game with Saint Louis or any other fully professional team. Da Drewster (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Louis FC - I think that's sufficient as people may look for information on him due to recent loan. Additionally this way the article can easily be recreated when he does play, which I agree does sound imminent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a bad redirect, since he obviously won't be on the Saint Louis FC roster forever so you will inevitably end up with a redirect pointing to a page where the subject is not mentioned. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. Reso lute 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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. Travelling with the team does not mean they will play anytime soon, once the player does pass a notability guideline then the article can be recreated / undeleted. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the claim that he will be making his pro debut shortly is made by his coach Frank Yallop in [3]. As such this is most certainly NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Nfitz (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually Nfitz, you might want to reread that source. The article talks about two players going on loan and the article seems pretty clear that it is Magee who is going on loan and will, play in St. Louis and get a game under his belt - about 60 minutes (which is what I assume you are refrencing). Comments about Brice are limited to a much more nebulous, This loan is a great opportunity for Kingsley to get meaningful games under his belt. he may well play, but the guarantee provided in the source cited is not about him unfortunately. WP:CRYSTAL still applies here. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article seems pretty clear to me. And the quote you've provided does make it clear that he was sent down in order to get playing time. Not sure what your seeing in that quote that I'm not. There's multiple media coverage for this transfer of Kingsley, including http://www.csnchicago.com/fire/fire-send-magee-bryce-usl-affiliate-saint-louis-loan which notes that Bryce's loan will encompass a more prolonged period as Yallop intends for the former Saint Louis University Billiken to get an extended run of games. That seems pretty clear to me, that he's been sent down to get games. As such, there is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that is applicable here. Fenix down, you might want to read and other references. If we delete this article, we'll simply be wasting everyone's time, when it's recreated in a few days. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exactly, he's been sent down with the intention of getting games, that is completely different to guaranteeing he will get any game time. After all, he could step under a bus today. Once he plays he is notable, at the moment he is not by any guideline. I would also recommend you re-read WP:CRYSTAL as it specifically advises editors to, Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. This is essentially the same as predicting that player will play soon, at least I see no fundamental difference in spirit. I'll happily change my view if plays while this AfD is open and have no problem personally undeleting the article should he meet any guideline at a later date, that literally takes two seconds. Fenix down (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - short of getting run over by a bus (at which point AFD is an option) he's been sent to this reserve squad for a reason - to get playing time. Other than a tragedy or career-ending incident it's hard to believe that this wouldn't happen. "Avoid predicted line-ups" is a reference to pundits ... not to the person who serves as Director of Soccer to BOTH teams, and head coach of the senior squad. We all know that this article will get recreated shortly. It's an utter waste of everyone's time not to apply WP:COMMONSENSE on this issue. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, you might wish to do a little re-reading, there is no mention whatsoever of pundits in WP:CRYSTAL. the statement Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative is all that is mentioned and is pretty clear. I'm not quite sure how you managed to make such a fundamental misreading, but would advise you to be a bit more careful in future as it may be interpreted as a lack of good faith to apparently make up policy. you are correct that the article may well get recreated soon, but that is not an issue, as I have already noted, I will happily undelete myself if / when the individual passes a guideline, that is not an onerous task by any means and is in no way an argument for keeping an inherently non-notable individual. Regarding the WP:COMMONSENSE point, lets look at the flow chart with regards to this article:

Does the existence of this article break the rules? Yes as the individual currently does not pass any guideline.
Is that because the rules are wrong? No, the rules in place specifically state that we do not create articles on people in anticipation of notability, hence the very existence of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.
Are you sure that the change is a good one by common sense that improves the encyclopedia? No, as it involves the addition of an article about an individual who fulfills no guidelines and is therefore inherently non-notable at the time. Arguing that it should be kept simply because it may well have to be recreated soon is essentially a mercy argument. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep refering to rules, despite there being no hard and fast rules. WP:NORULES WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You refer to sports team line-ups, despite no reference being made to one - I'm not sure how you managed to make such a fundamental misreading, but I'd advise you to be a bit more careful in the future, as it may be interpreted as a lack of good faith! Nfitz (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, WP:CRYSTAL states very clearly, and I quote: Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A policy stating explicitly not to predict the selection of a group of players for any given event is in spirit identical to predicting the involvement of a single player in any given event / line up and your comments above have explicitly predicted his inclusion in a sports team line up in the future as a claim to notability.

To try to progress this discussion, I have addressed the four main points rooted in fundamental guidelines and policies:

This player has never played in a fully professional league or senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY;
This player has not received significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG;
I have shown how following the WP:COMMONSENSE flow chart does not lead to a keep outcome;
I have indicated that a "don't delete it when it will only have to be recreated later" argument can readily be construed to fall foul of WP:MERCY.

It would help if you could perhaps address some of the points I have made. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to respond to your comments. You keep referring to sports team-line ups. I have not mentioned any line-ups (an typical example of which would be [4]) - I have only mentioned the statement of the director of soccer of both the first team and reserve squad - which isn't a line-up. I've also clearly demonstrated why WP:CRYSTAL isn't valid in this particular case. All your other points are valid, except that we know from the reference provided that (short of tragedy) he will get a first team appearance for the fully-professional reserve squad shortly - and therefore WP:COMMONSENSE tells us that we should WP:Ignore all rules remembering that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and not delete an article that we all know will soon be recreated. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that we do not apply WP:NFOOTBALL prematurely is an incredibly well established consensus, having been universally applied at afd for as long as the guideline has existed. Until he actually plays, the article does not does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and in the absence of significant coverage fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case, we have a clear statement from the team's director of soccer, that he's been sent to this reserve squad for the purpose of playing. I'm not aware of a single other example of this, so there is neither a well established consensus or even a precedent for this situation - as far as I know; but correct me if I'm wrong. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All players are contracted for the purpose of playing, otherwise why would they be contracted? By your logic therefore anyone signed to a club should have an article because they are in the squad for the purpose of playing. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense ... unless there is a clear statement that a player is signed for particular squad, with the intent to play - which seldom happens to young players. You are putting words in my mouth - words I'd never use. Please stop making strawman arguments. Nfitz (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nfitz: according to this source from February 2015, young player Keshi Anderson was going to be in the squad for the forthcoming match - but he wasn't and he's still waiting for his first appearance four months later...it's still WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely there's a huge difference between a coach saying he's going to give a 20-year old striker a couple of minutes at the end up an upcoming tier 1 match (which is obviously going to depend on what happens to that match), and a coach saying he's transferring a 22-year old midfielder from the tier 1 club to the fully-professional tier 3 reserve squad in order for him to get playing time. Either way, there's WP:NOHARM in simply leaving the article in place for a few weeks to see what happens. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that it's significantly different. The time scale is longer, clearly, but if and when his debut will happen is just as dependent on what happens in the interceding time as Snowman's example. Additionally, if DaDrewster's unsourced comments on the talk page are accurate, something similar to that example has already happened in this case. Bryce was apparently speculated to play St. Louis' match last Saturday against Pittsburgh, but didn't, which necessarily colours other speculation on the matter. Finally, you should really stop citing NOHARM in these things since it's one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that (his lack of appearance so far) may be a valid point - he didn't even appear on the bench for a match, even though we know that he was with club by at least the most recent match - [5]; that and I've noted incorrectly that this is the Chicago Fire reserve squad - which isn't true ... Chicago is one of the few teams in MLS without a reserve squad in USL - with St. Louis being an independent team with only an affiliation - which may explain reluctance to do Chicago's bidding (I'm surprised no one caught me on that!). Perhaps User:DaDrewster has some knowledge or a reference that explains why he hasn't appeared yet? I disagree that WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid though ... it's an argument to avoid for keeping an article forever; I agree that if he can't make the USL squad, that article shouldn't be here. My point is that there is WP:NOHARM in waiting a few weeks to see what happens. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait a few months, or a year? Why in a few weeks time is the argument "lets wait a couple more weeks" not still valid? The answer is, as you well know, because we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. The change in the tone of your argument from the start, where you tried to suggest Yallop was guaranteeing he was going to play in a specific game very soon (despite this referring to someone completely different) to now saying "let's just wait and see what happens in a bit" when he doesn't even make the squad, shows better than anything anyone else could say that your argument rests solely on your own speculation and is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think after a few months, would be clear that the source had mis-spoke. Read the discussion. My change in tone is because of my error that I noted that Yallop is not Manager of Soccer for both teams; that changes things. Your assertion that this rests solely on my own speculation is in fact speculation, that you are pulling right out of your imagination. Perhaps you should read the discussion, rather than putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting WP:CRYSTAL like you've seen a wolf in the hills. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Yallop is not the manager of both teams he cannot direct who plays. His statement therefore contains an inherent level of speculation. Your use of his statement to support keeping the article is also therefore speculation. Your presence in this discussion would be more useful if you perhaps framed your comments around trying to indicate GNG rather than using rationale after rationale that are specifically noted as unacceptable, in the hope that these will be accepted as reasons to keep an article on a player who might at some point in the future just about scrape over a project specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As Yallop is not the manager of both teams he cannot direct who plays." Yes. That's exactly the issue I raised. Your presence in this discussion would be more useful if you perhaps had pointed out that exact issue before I did, rather than simply yelling wolf and than leaving it for me to realise my error. If I'd have been correct about that, then WP:CRYSTAL would have been clearly off the table (despite your claims otherwise). If you'd pointed out that mistake when I made it, we'd have about 15 less comments here. Nfitz (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing on GNG? Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has raised the possibility that the article WP:GNG other than you. What needs to be addressed on that? What have you seen that raises WP:GNG possibilities? Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator. Made his pro debut for Saint Louis so I'm dropping my nomination. – Michael (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest listening to Frank Yallup next time, rather than starting unnecessary deletions based on false claims of WP:CRYSTAL. It was very unlikely that Bryce wouldn't be playing quickly, given the clear desire of Yallup and the relationship between the teams. Nfitz (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet the guidelines until today. So it was not a false claim. I suggest you start relying on past consensus put fourth by the football project rather than trying to make a point. – Michael (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was very clear he'd be starting very soon based on multiple very clear media reports. There was absolutely no reason that a little common sense couldn't be applied to simply wait for a couple of matches to make sure he didn't meet a tragic end from a falling satellite or something. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (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.