Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1, 21, scored five goals in 50 league appearances for the Pilgrims but rejected the offer a new contract. Manager NAME_2 is also considering signing ex-Burton Albion striker NAME_3, who has been training with the Dragons. NAME_4 is a free agent after finishing the 2015-16 season at Torquay, who are keen to re-sign the 31-year-old. "He's experienced, knows the leagues and has scored an abundance of goals in his career," NAME_5 told BBC Wales Sport. "I managed him at Notts County when he was a younger player so he could well be part of us as well." Full-back NAME_6 has also been on trial with the National League side following his release from Championship club Fulham. NAME_7 is a product of Wrexham's academy and NAME_5 said the 20-year-old could sign for the club ahead of their opening league game against Dover Athletic on 6 August.

Summary:
1. Wrexham are interested in signing NAME_8 striker NAME_9 after he turned down a new deal with the League Two club.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
