Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King (soccer)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 due to his professional debut. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King (soccer)

Stephen King (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the comment that he has yet to play a game for then is valid, it is worth noting that the MLS season has not begun yet, so it would have been impossible for him to play a game for them. Also worth noting that he did play at the top level of amateur soccer (college soccer) in the United States. And it also worth mentioning that it will be highly unlikely that he would not play a game within the coming weeks. Is it worth deleting the article now, just to be re-created in a week's time? Common sense should apply here. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note there's no existing notability policy in the Wikipedia, they're all guidelines (even WP:N). And WP:IAR must be used with common sense, otherwise it becomes sort of anarchy, read WP:WIARM for more details. --Angelo (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As noted by Angelo above, in WP:WIARM," The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)" I think, in the spirit of commen sense at least, we should at least wait until after the first game of the season on Saturday. If he fails to play in that game, I will agree with deletion under WP:BIO, and the page can be re-created when he does. --Eastlygod (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable player. TheProf | Talk 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to move the page to Stephen King (Footballer) after this AfD is finshed. TheProf | Talk 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an AMerican player in the national American league, soccer would be more appropriate, IMHO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, "soccer" players are known internationally as Footballers. (Ps. Good luck in your RfA!) Cheers. TheProf | Talk 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player has yet to play a match in a fully professional league. Please re-create article once he has.Keep Now that King appeared in a professional match. Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has not played in a match yet. No independent third party references that help assert notability outside the game of soccer so until he plays delete this. This is a clear case where WP:BIO#Athletes applies even though it is just a guideline. There have been other athletes that have not played but have shown to meet the base requirements for notability as in this case and are kept. This is no such article. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just like to point out that WP:FOOTYN does not seem to take into account the varying circumstances that the MLS has to most other worldwide professional leagues when it comes to the draft system. In most other leagues, if a player hasn't played a professional game, he is most likely a reserve/youth player. However, draft picks in the MLS already have considerable experience behind them, and are expected to slot straight in the first team squad. I know it still isn't covered by WP:ATHLETE, but I thought it'd would be worth mentioning, as maybe an update is required. --Eastlygod (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But lots of English players are also in the first team squads at their clubs, but don't get an article until they have played a game (see this AfD for a Arsenal player with a squad number). I don't see why the basic criteria of having played a game needs to be changed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - All of the above arguments saying "he has yet to play in a game" are completely ludicrous: the MLS season hasn't even kicked off yet! Oh I get it, he was supposed to have traveled forward in time to play in a game, come back, tell us about it, and then try to support this case? How about waiting until the Chicago Fire actually play at least ONE game? That's probably too hard for the deletionists though. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability in full compliance with WP:BIO. The mad rush to AfD is only made more ludicrous by the fact that the MLS season starts in four days, counting down on the team's website. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "rush to AfD" - I just nominated the article as soon as I saw it. The timing of the start of the season is irrelevant unless you want to get into WP:CRYSTAL territory. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may want to check that crystal ball; No knee breaks, he wasn't cut from the team, a meteorite didn't land on the stadium. All that was needed was the most basic common sense. None was exercised in pushing this AfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHe is a current squad player which makes him IMO notable.BigDunc (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being in a squad is not enough; he has to actually play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. The reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability, and his selection by the Chicago Fire and his making the squad only adds to it, even without playing a second of a game. This is simply obsessive deletionism at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is called sticking to policy, which would be nice if a few other people tried. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually what you are demanding is an arbitrary and inaccurate interpretation of one policy. WP:BIO doesn't require deletion of articles for athletes who have not played in a game; it clearly states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The sources provided establish notability. Your demand for deletion as " sticking to policy" is one of the most foolish excuses ever made for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No part of WP:CRYSTAL applies, especially when the season begins in a matter of days. If he hasn't played in a month or two re-nominate it. One Night In Hackney303 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely. It's not "mere" speculation if it's going to happen in four days. And looking at his skillset, it is more likely that he will play than get hit by lightning, a car, or die in a freak knitting accident. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some online reports of the Fire's pre-season friendlies, and it appears that King was generally used as one of many 2nd half substitutes (although he did start against a college "select" team on the 19th). That is a good sign that he may play at some point during the season, but it's not a given that he will see action this weekend or any weekend in the near future. Jogurney (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is why I believe in the invocation of WP:IAR in this case: It is smart thinking to do research and publish an article on a national-level athlete a few days before his first league game, and better organized than many technically notable player articles, too. It one-ups the last minute fan-users who might plop out something inferior, which may shape the future of the article for some time. This effort assists in creating a better Wikipedia, and therfore I think WP:IAR applies neatly in this single case, as it would for similarly skilled scheduled players who may not yet have played in the league. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well as he will supposedly make his debut before the AfD ends, then I will withdraw it. However, should he fail to play, then shall I expect everyone who has voted to keep to reversve their votes? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree to that, as I mentioned above. But I also think changes need to be made regarding MLS articles procedure. Due to the college draft system, many players are highly notable and have a large amount of media spotlight before they've even played a league game, especially those picked in the first couple of draft rounds. If we waited every time till they played a league game, we are missing out on highly valuable editing time, and a large amount of articles will be rushed through by inexperienced editors once they make their debut. --Eastlygod (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per CobaltBlueTony. Common sense dictates that there is a good chance this athlete may meet the guideline of WP:BIO at the weekend. Let's see, and if he does not play, re-evaluation may be needed. I don't see which policy is being violated by temporarily keeping this article. EJF (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to agree with EJF. The player in question is in fact listed on the roster provided by CobaltBlueTony™ four days prior to their first game, and as far as I see that's an extremely convincing sign that this player is about to meet the exact letter of WP:FOOTYN 1 in all but four days. Citing WP:CRYSTAL at this point just seems like a petty concern we can ignore for now so close to the fact. This whole AFD just seems premature. Shallon Michaels (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel like anyone who can read English can understand that WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the content of articles, not to the context in which they are discussed on AFD. Also, I feel like WP:FOOTY has an unfortunate tendency to deify the WP:BIO guideline (despite what you may think, it's not a god - it's not even a policy!). It's one reason why we have AFD - to discuss articles that technically violate notability guidelines but that common sense or the more overarching guideline of WP:N tells us we should keep. ugen64 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP is not a bureaucracy and WP:IAR. If he's darn likely to play in 4 days (or even 2 months) there is no point in deleting. It's just following the rule to spite the spirit IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we start allowing articles on players who might play a game in '2 months' then the flood gates will be open to every reserve team player and youth team hopeful in the world. The arguments used for ignoring WP:CRYSTAL here are specious. There is no certainty that this player will play, and even if he does, it wasn't inevitable that he would do so. If allowed to stand this will act as a precedent which will waste hugely more time in pointless discussions of the notability of nonentities than would be saved by allowing this to stand. Nick mallory (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So is it permissible to remove the tag from his page then? Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you are not allowed to remove it until the AfD is closed. As noted above, I won't be withdrawing it as we're all waiting to see if people's crystal balls are working correctly and he does indeed make his debut on Saturday. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm in England and don't have a way to watch that match on TV. I've heard a rumour that it will be broadcast as either live or nearly live on the main MLS website. My question here is can that part of the website be accessed by a non-american IP? If yes, to save me the trouble, could someone post a direct link to the part of the MLS site that shows it on my talk page? -- Note: This does not count as using wikipedia as a forum because that match directly effects this article and this AfD discussion. Thank you TheProf | Talk 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete is not a published author - Keep notability does not hinge on just one criteria Agathoclea (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless he has made a professional appearance before this AfD is closed. It shouldn't matter how many people !vote keep I like it or he will definitely play soon. If it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/Notability then it shouldn't be kept. What is the point of inclusion criteria and notability guidelines if they can be ignored in cases where enough people vote to ignore them because they like a particular article. The article will not be lost if it is deleted, it can be restored if/when the player ever actually plays at professional level. English peasant 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is ridiculous. He is on the starting roster for a Major League Soccer team. If that doesn't count as notable by WP:FOOTYN, change WP:FOOTYN. And what happens if the consensus is to delete a few days from now, he plays on Saturday, and the AfD closes as 'delete'? Does anyone else agree that sounds silly? Relata refero (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "he is on the starting roster"? He is listed as number 33 in the club's squad. As noted above, if he plays on saturday I'll withdraw the AfD as he'll qualify. If he doesn't the article should be deleted and then restored when he does. We can't keep the article just to wait for him to play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's in the first squad, right? I can't imagine why that doesn't make him sufficiently notable by our standards. Seriously, can anyone imagine this fuss if he was playing for a European club? Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I can't; if he had been a European player the majority of votes would be for delete (see this AfD on an Arsenal player who has even appeared on the bench and in friendlies - the admin's closing note is worth noting too)! We only seem to have this problem with trying to delete articles on MLS players who don't meet the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remember the Gavin Hoyte deletion. Mistakenly closed, in my opinion. There's a difference between a primavera squad and a first squad, and I think all members of a first squad are "competing" in the league in question. Relata refero (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the people handing out the medals see it like that :) But on a serious note, we can't have articles on players just because they are in the squad - there are numerous players with squad numbers in the top 4 divisions in England who will never make an appearance for their clubs, and I assume that's why WP:BIO#Athletes developed like it did - the only way we can guarantee notability is by the player actually crossing the threshold between squad member and player; until then everything is just WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:N. Just being on the roster for an MLS team does not confer notability. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lack of notability/CRYSTAL issues can be spotlighted by the following question - if he broke both his legs today so badly he never played sport again, would this article be anything other than a speedy if created a year later (he was a player who sadly almost but never quite did something notable)? Until he crosses the whitewashed line, he has no notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't make him notable in his sport, only a major appearance does that. Nick mallory (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - a mayor appearance makes one notable even if there is no other coverage - but a lack of a mayor appearance does not make one non-notable. Agathoclea (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:ATHLETE criteria of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." - I've also added an additional reference to the article. Since we've been here many times before recently, I'll offer my counter-argument to the argument that will inevitably follow, and that's already been advanced a few times above.

Playing in a professional-level game is not the only way to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. A sports league can be professional or amateur. An individual participating in a sport can be professional or amateur. Football is not a "professional sport" - in fact, there are few sports that can be exclusively described as professional, and football isn't one of them. In North America, there is professional football - such as the MLS - and there is amateur football - such as the NCAA. As a result, a football player - or hockey player, or baseball player, or basketball player, or American football player - has two ways in which they could satisfy WP:ATHLETE.

Also, regarding the concern raised above that allowing this article to stand will set a precedent, assuming that we can satisfy that adequate secondary sources exist, the precedent has already been set. Within the last several weeks, articles on Sean Franklin, Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Chance Myers, and Julius James were all kept following Afd discussions, and that's kept, rather than closed as no consensus. These articles have several similarities, not least of which that all the players involved are 2008 MLS SuperDraft selections from the NCAA. They all survived Afd largely because members of the community were able to demonstrate sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the second point of WP:ATHLETE. Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a dirty word around here, but sometimes it's a valid consideration.

Unfortunately, until we can get a general understanding that WP:FOOTYN, while an extremely valuable starting point and a valid framework for that project, is superceded by the broader guidelines of WP:BIO, this exercise will repeat itself every year. There will be a 2009 MLS SuperDraft, articles will get created about many of the top choices in that draft, all of whom will likely have sufficient secondary sources to establish notability despite the fact that they haven't played in a professional game, they'll all get tagged with a prod or an Afd, lather, rinse, repeat. Sigh … Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_King_(soccer)&oldid=1140115373"