Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody

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 per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lascody

Players do not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, players do not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reasons:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some of them seem to play for professional teams (in the MLS), but haven't had any apps, so maybe delete, but be able to recreate if they to play this season. — chan dler — 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Most of them do, however they have not played in a professional game, thus are non-notable. GauchoDude (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Kevin Reiman, plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable second party sources to satisfy WP:BIO, also has a pro club listed which I think would satisfy athlete, but BIO alone is enough. MrPrada (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, they're all on MLS teams. We would not delete an AAA baseball player who was just called up to the major league team and is waiting to appear. If there is non trivial coverage from reliable second party sources, that satisfies WP:BIO, and that is all you need. Obviously there is a strong case to keep all on that basisi, and its of note that several of these players actually have MLS appearances, furthering the question aso why they are here at AFD and not stubs for improvement. MrPrada (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these are notable. One is the keeper for the US Olympic Team heading to China. Another is frequently named as a substitute for MLS first team games. Most can be found on the current MLS roster. Some had high draft positions. One previously survived an AFD (shouldn't that be noted in this AFD?). One had a Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. As previously noted, bundling players like this doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then recreate his article when he appears in a match in China. And recreate the others when they appear in first team matches. Just because they get named to the bench does not make them notable. You have to actually play in a game, not just be named to the people who sit around waiting to get in to one. Your thinking is a clear violation of WP:FUTURE. 68.6.116.109 (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specious. If they were olympic benchers, they're not notable enough for inclusion, and if the team wins a bronze medal, they suddenly are? Heh. MrPrada (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - In my opinion, anyone good enough to be named to an Olympic soccer team, reserve or not, is among the 25 best players in his/her country. That's notable, period, even if they never play a minute. Powers ^T 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep All I checked was the first player listed (Doug Lascody) and found he currently plays for the Kansas City Wizards. Since this is a top-tier major league professional team, the accusation that it is "not a professional team" is absurd. Good enough for me, why bother checking the other nominations if the first one should never have been listed by the nominator's own statement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All A quick check of Michael Kraus on the MLS Kansas City Wizards website says "Led reserves with 4 assists and scored 2 goals in 12 Reserve Division games (10 starts)." So, as a recent major-league draftee from a notable college soccer program Creighton University, he has quickly become a leader of the reserve squad in his first season... not exactly the type of accomplishment we need to wipe off the face of Wikipedia... With the points that others' research have pointed out, I say Keep! - BierHerr | Bier holen gehen 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dominic Cervi was just up for an AfD less than a month ago. I think it's in poor form to renom so quickly, but even more so considering the nominator didn't link to the previous discussion. matt91486 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the nominator's job for him. Here is the past discussion on Cervi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Cervi. matt91486 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Soccer isn't the most notable sport and these guys aren't the most notable soccer players, but that is a matter of my opinion. Keep because they are notable to soccer fans. Dincher (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what sport would be more notable than football? — chan dler — 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- more notable than "football" (soccer) in the United States (where the Kansas City Wizards play)? American football, baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, NASCAR, boxing, ... for starters...

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.