Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Espinoza

From 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 no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Espinoza

Roger Espinoza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also adding Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Eric Brunner, Mike Zaher, Alex Nimo, Ely Allen, Yomby William, Sean Franklin, Julius James and Josh Lambo to this AfD as they also fail WP:BIO by not having played in a fully pro league.

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, these players were all drafted in the first round of the 2008 MLS SuperDraft so their notability is obvious. In the case of Patrick Nyarko, he was an all-American for Virginia Tech and would obviously qualify under the "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)" criterion of WP:BIO even if he weren't drafted. --B (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The "amateur" bit is generally disregarded in Football as it is a professional sport (see the last comment in this AfD on two similar players (which were deleted)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the previous AFD was incorrect in my view, but not as flagrantly as this one. First round MLS draft picks are obviously notable. Patrick Nyarko, who is the highest pick of any of the aforementioned individuals, and was twice an all-American in college, is obviously notable regardless of anything else. Nyarko was a finalist for the Hermann Trophy, the soccer equivalent of the Heisman [1][2] and is the best soccer player in Virginia Tech history [3][4]. Unless you are planning to rewrite WP:BIO to state that the general notability criterion does not apply to soccer players, Nyarko's notability is obvious. In fact, I would much prefer for Nyarko to have a separate AFD because he is far and away the most notable of those mentioned here and if an incorrect decision were made to delete the others, compounding that by deleting Nyarko as well would be silly. --B (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment to Number 57. We appear to have different implementations of the word "amateur." Most, if not all, of the major team sports are played at a professional level; just as football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey are played at both professional and amateur levels in the US, so too is soccer. Division I in NCAA sports is at the highest level of amateur sports before athletes turn professional. WP:BIO is clearly satisfied as it states that athletes must "have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." All of the above meet this definition. Notability is clearly satisfied, whether or not you acknowledge or "regard" the system in place here in the United States. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The problem is that if these articles get kept, then it opens the floodgates to reinstate tonnes of articles (mostly on players from the Football Conference) which have been deleted based on the current criteria, as previously editors have stuck rigidly to rules in determining their position in AfD debates. Football is not classed as an Amateur sport, and therefore players cannot qualify as having played at the highest amateur level. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
            • A WP:WAX argument is not a valid argument for deletion. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
              • This is not WP:WAX, this is a serious concern that at least a hundred articles could be legitimately put up for DRV if this AfD fails, as it will set a precendent which goes against the current one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
                • It most certainly is WP:WAX, as well as WP:ALLORNOTHING, which is equally invalid. Your concern may be shared among a subset of editors who haven't the first clue about college soccer and the system as set up in the United States (a system that you have demonstrated is different from your professional and semi-professional system over there), but in an article about American players that meet the letter of WP:BIO with sources, WP:WAX does not a valid argument make. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on all. This most recent jihad on college soccer players (or should I say American soccer players? because we all know that's an oxymoron, don't we?) is one big WP:IDONTKNOWIT argument that ignores notability requirements that have been met by these articles. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's important to clarify that these are not college soccer players. They are players who were drafted in the first round of the MLS draft - a fully professional soccer league. In the case of Patrick Nyarko, he was a finalist for soccer's version of the Heisman Trophy and has been profiled by media outlets independent of Virginia Tech, including the Washington Post and Roanoke Times. --B (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree. However, my point has been that once one becomes a college player and receives significant coverage, if they never do anything else, notability is already satisfied. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't understand why these players are subject to different criteria than players on the 2007 College Football All-America Team, for instance. After all, isn't the NFL just as professional as MLS? Greg Oden hasn't played a single minute of NBA basketball yet, does that mean he is not notable? ugen64 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No re-definition of WP:BIO needed to justify these deletions. It says that there are two criteria for sports people: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, which these people have not, and Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports, which is linked to Amateur sports, which states By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration: this clearly does not include football/soccer. These players have apparently been signed by professional teams: they are likely, therefore, to eventually represent them. When this happens, they will meet the criteria, until then they do not. Being considered for an award, but not winning it, is not of itself grounds for notability. Kevin McE (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It does include soccer. There's a system for amateurs, players play in it, they don't get paid for it, meets the definition just fine to me. Just because they move up doesn't negate that notability; in fact, I would think it makes them more notable. We can't just delete athletes' articles once they finish playing at the college level, that's absurd. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • When Patrick Nyarko was a student at Virginia Tech, he, like every other NCAA athlete in the country, played without renumeration. He was an amateur athlete - just like any NCAA football, NCAA basketball, NCAA soccer, NCAA volleyball, NCAA tennis, etc, athlete. While an amateur athlete, he was profiled by multiple non-trivial media sources independent of himself or his school - see above for the links. He thus met WP:BIO as an amateur athlete. Now, he has gone on to be drafted in the first round of the MLS draft - the highest level of professional soccer in America. There are countless news articles about him. The same is true of all of the other players - this isn't really questionable. --B (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see that you are arguing for a level of paticipation greater than that of the Varsity Match in English Rugby: amateur participation in a professional sport, that happens to attract some media coverage. There is professional soccer in the US, ergo soccer in the US is not at its highest level an amateur sport. These men have not participated in it, perhaps in time they will, and then their articles wll be fully justified. There are countless apprentices at professional clubs in Europe and South America who play in front of paying audiences every week of the season, and who have no other occupation, but they do not reach notability, even if they attract some media attention. I have not seen any compeking reason why their US equivalents should be treated differently. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You are reading the definition wrong. WP:BIO doesn't say that the amateur level must be the highest level in that sport, it says "the highest level in amateur sports." NCAA Division I meets that definition. Otherwise there would be a whole slew of college athletes in sports that also have professional systems that would be non-notable. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you are reading it wrong. It has been well-established by WP:Football that football is not an amateur sport, and that this is not relevant here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't stipulate to that. Soccer is a sport at BOTH the amateur and professional levels. That may contradict with your worldview, but it is reality. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My worldview? Perhaps you should ask some other WP:Football members. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This isn't the same as the European system. These aren't random signees that will languish in youth teams for maybe 5-7 years before possibly breaking through. Being drafted in the first round signifies notability. matt91486 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well when they make their debut, they will deserve their article. UNtil then, your confidence that they will make the grade does not justify breaking WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a completely different system. I realize that some articles that you wrote recently were deleted under this policy, but these players have competed at the highest amateur levels in NCAA competition and were drafted professionally in a major sport league. This competition makes them notable already, and WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. My confidence that they will someday make an appearance has nothing to do with it. matt91486 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
One minor correction - NCAA DI athletes are notable PROVIDED that they meet the general criterion of independent coverage. We don't need a series of articles on long snappers of the Sun Belt Conference. --B (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course. I'm not trying to say that every D1 athlete should get their own article, just in this context, the combination of their college experience and their drafting. matt91486 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying I shouldn't write backup longsnappers, deepsnappers, holders, gunners, and punt blockers of the MEAC, right? ;) --B (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Now as fascinating as an analysis of Delaware State's special teams may be, it might not be the most durable article creation, haha. matt91486 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - the American college athletes system is clearly very different to our (England's) amateur systems and as I understand it, garners significant media coverage. I don't think all participants in the draft should automatically make notability guidelines, however those that have received coverage in the media should be considered on merit. Espinoza's page links to one source (though my Spanish isn't good enough); each player should be considered invidually based on this. It seems like it should be easier to find sources for these players than for a lot of League 2 players. Paulbrock (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, these players have made significant contributions to the college game, and will make contributions to the professional game. Additionally, the fact they were selected in the first round of the MLS draft, makes them even more no-tah-bul. м info (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete We delete English players who have not played in a fully professional league. We delete Irish players who have not played in a fully professional league. We delete French players who have not played in a fully professional league. We should also delete American players who have not played in a fully professional league. Football is a professional sport, therefore any arguments about amateur sports are irrelevant; that guideline refers to amateur sports; it's not an invitation to open the floodgates for players who haven't made the grade in professional sports. Robotforaday (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It took about 45 seconds to find an article on an English player with no professional experience, Alex Campana, I'm sure there are hundreds más. м info (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should have spent more than 45 seconds: the article clearly states that he has made at least two first-team, competitive appearances for Watford, a fully professional team. However, you are right that there are many others that should not have articles. Members of WP:Football work hard to remove these results of excessive enthusiasm from supporters aware of the juniors at their clubs, and we are simply applying the same principles here. We do not normally encounter so much resistance to the neutral application of a clear policy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The appropriate WP footy page is NOT a policy, or even a guideline. Even WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are guidelines, which clearly state that it is possible for a player to be notable without having played in a professional league (Wikipedia:Bio#Additional_criteria). There's resistance to this AfD as there's a reasonable argument that some of these players have already achieved notability ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"). Paulbrock (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if its confirmed that he's an MLS player, I think that mroe than satisfies the highest professional league part Corpx (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • He hasn't actually played in the MLS though (and assuming he will is violating WP:CRYSTAL). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Most of these players also played for high profile D1 universities ("highest amateur level" in the US, I'd say). We have pages on several D1 football players who never went on to the NFL. Then again not all universities field a men's soccer team, so I dont know where we should draw the line. Changing vote to weak keep Corpx (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If a DI athlete has distinguished himself/herself sufficiently that media outside of the school reports on him/her in such a way that exceeds their reporting of all players on the team, in other words, more than just a game recap, then that's what I interpret "who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them" to mean. So chances are, someone who is a first round draft pick is going to be profiled in the media and have news articles written about them, thus meeting that criterion. Soccer isn't quite the same as football - in the NFL, it is a dead certainty that someone picked in the first round is going to make the team and play for at least that season - they wouldn't have drafted him otherwise. But in MLS, teams are smaller and the draft isn't quite as big of a deal - some teams might only have one or two players still on the team from their 2007 draft. Even so, though, as NCAA athletes, these players all met the criterion, regardless of whether they ever play a minute in MLS. --B (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all - fail usual interpretation of WP:BIO in relation to footballers - not played (yet) in a fully professional league. When (or if) they do, re-create the articles. - fchd (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You probably should go ahead and delete everyone listed at User:B/NCAA data too. (Sarcasm off) WP:BIO has never meant that no college athlete is notable. All of these people meet the general notability criterion. --B (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm really not interested in other NCAA athletes, particularly those in other sports. This AfD concerns the articles listed above only, and consensus in many previous AfDs for footballers is that to satisfy the policies, they must have made an appearance in a fully professional league to cross the bar of notability. - fchd (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I see a logical fallacy. You want to restrict the discussion to these articles only, yet open the discussion to past articles, ignoring without detail all other policies and precedents that oppose your rationale. I'm not sure I buy that. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, perhaps I could have said that a little bit clearer. So, the relevant bit of WP:BIO for athletes says (reformatted slightly for easier reading in this context) "Athletes - 1) Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. 2) Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". As football is a professional sport (even in the U.S.A., the country to which these articles relate), clause 2 is not in effect. Clause 1 says they must have competed in a fully professional league, which Espinoza and the others have not. Even If it was deemed that clause 2 was in effect, I'd also find it pretty hard to justify that NCAA competitions are the highest level of amateur football in the US, either. There are leagues below the MLS that, being open-aged, would almost certainly be of a higher level. Different criteria may apply for basketballers and American footballers, I just don't know enough to pretend enough insight into the various levels to participate in discussions on those subjects. But in this case, my !vote remains Delete, and that Delete is getting stronger all the time. - fchd (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
            • College soccer is an amateur sport. The fact that somewhere some people play professional soccer doesn't change the fact that these guys all played college soccer at its highest level and all meet the general notability criterion.--B (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Comment. We might be witnessing a major language gap here. I don't know about other dialects of English, but I do know "amateur" and "professional" can coexist in the same environment when it comes to American English. Maybe that's what the deletion proponents are getting hung up on. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
                • "College soccer" is not a sport: it is the level of a sport (soccer) that is played in US colleges. Sunday league football is not a sport either, it is a level of football played in the UK: the best Sunday league players do not attain notability for that. College soccer is clearly not the highest level of soccer played in the US, Richard suggests that it might not be the highest amateur level either. Reportage may be cultural rather than determined by standards: until fairly recently, The Times and the Daily Telegraph regularly reported on the football and rugby matches of the top public schools, but it would be fallacious to claim that this was the highest level of either game in the country. Kevin McE (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • Actually, that's a very good point - the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the US. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
                    • The NCAA isn't in the same pyramid as the USL, so it's hard to compare them. It's a separate entity. matt91486 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral They can't be kept or deleted in one group, they all need to be looked at on a case by case basis. If they can be shown to have general notability then whether they are notable under WP:FOOTY rules is irrelevant, and they should be kept. Otherwise they should probably fall under the jurisdiction of that project, which clearly says they should be deleted. John Hayestalk 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Until they play a professional game they fail WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Patrick Nyarko has been the subject of several news media profiles (Washington Post, Roanoke Times) that I linked above. He passes the general notability criterion - how does he fail WP:BIO? --B (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - many people are quoting WP:BIO as a reason for delete, however please note that the intro to the section detailing playing in professional leagues reads:
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

(emphasis mine, taken from Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria). I suggest that the subjects are evaluated against the key criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (WP:N). Paulbrock (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per Football WikiProject notability criteria. As I understand it, they'll soon be notable without controversy in no time at all when their new teams ask them to cross the whitewash for the first time. If they never play because of an unfortunate accident, they've not achieved enough to be notable by our criteria. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He's a major draft pick, a US youth international, and will be playing in MLS this year. This seems like a no-brainer to me. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "will be playing in MLS this year" WP:CRYSTAL? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Once again, he meets notability already beyond his potential to play in the MLS. matt91486 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of this comes from European unfamiliarity with the US system. At this time, the NCAA is pretty much a giant academy for US soccer. How are these guys less notable than Séan Evans, James Chester, and Sam Hewson of ManU for example (I would argue that they are more notable)? Furthermore, Lambo and Nimo have played in the U-17 WC, and the two of them plus Nyarko and Espinoza already have professional contracts. Regardless of this, being top draft picks in the MLS draft is enough for notability. If all these articles are deleted, even with 100% certainty that they'll be re-started in two months time, wouldn't that mean they are notable to begin with? Wikipedia pedantry at its worst. --Balerion (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Those 3 Man Utd reserves seem to also fail WP:BIO: if they do meet the criteria, that claim is not in their article. Thank you for drawing our attention to them: I'll set up an AfD. After all, that is what should happen for all footballers who do not meet the criteria, whatever side of the Atlantic they live. Meanwhile, your concept of 100% certainty is an interesting one: can the unpredictable, or unlikely, never happen? Kevin McE (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See WP:Otherstuffexistsbuthopefullywon'tafterKevinMcEhasstartedanafdsothatwecandeleteit ;) Robotforaday (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The certainty comment was hyperbole and I shouldn't have written it in this forum. As far as everything else, it's important to understand the differences in sports structure between the US and Europe. No US sports teams have academies which develop athletes from a very young age, paying them a living stipend (other than the very recently-developed MLS academies which are in their infancy). Instead, we have drafts, in which players are selected from NCAA programs, or sometimes high schools. These amateur programs serve as a giant "general pool" academy, in effect -- which is far from efficient, but that's another story. However, these drafts have become a big event in the sporting calendar of MLS, NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. I think that being picked in that event supercedes specific footballing guidelines under WP:BIO. Because in truth at least 95% of players in the SuperDraft play professionally (most who don't make MLS teams either go to Europe or play in the 2nd-level USL, also professional). Not football/soccer, but Len Bias is an example of a draftee who is still notable. The Supplemental Draft is definitely a different territory because there's a much higher attrition rate, but I do believe that the Keep vs. Delete debate breaks down pretty much on American vs. European lines based on perception of importance of drafts in the US. --Balerion (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Your observations are reasonable up to a point, except for the fact that players who only play for the academies of teams in the UK should not have an article, as they have not yet played in a fully professional league. So it is not as though we are saying that players who have participated in the European youth setup should have articles, but people who have participated at the US college setup should not; the opposition is generally a consistent one saying that it only makes sense to have articles for people who are competing in a nation's professional leagues. Robotforaday (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • That wasn't the point I was trying to drive at. I'm saying that appearances or no, being picked in a top-level US Pro sports league is notable.--Balerion (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While I don't agree college soccer players should have articles, them being drafted is like a extremely promicing transfer from the youth club to the premier league. In american sports, being drafted in the first round in every sport, (with the expection of baseball) is extremely likely to play proffesionally, unless something tragic happens). American soccer is much different than British soccer because of that reasoning. If they don't make the pros, the articles can be AFD again. Secret account 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL again. How long do we wait until he hasn't played a game? 25, 30, 35? пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But I can't help thinking that this is the wrong way around - why can't people wait until they make the pros to create this articles in the first place? You don't see me creating articles about people in my college rowing team. Robotforaday (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:N isn't temporary. If he's notable now, he's notable in six months time even if he doesn't play. Conversely if he's not notable in six months time cos he hasn't played, then he's not notable now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A degree of disingenuity seems to have been employed by some defenders of these articles in their citing of college (American ) football/basketball as evidence of the scale, profile and importance of college soccer. It should be noted that the college team for which Patrick Nyarko (who is the most strongly defended of these candidates for deletion) played, have a stadium with a capacity of 2,500. This seems to place them on a scale comparable with sides in the Ryman League, or similar. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's depends on the sport, and remember they were drafted, so they no longer in college. Secret account 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But also have yet to play for the teams that they've been drafted for. Robotforaday (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's the same with college football players, we create articles on them once we know they are going to get drafted, or are drafted, being drafted in sports like soccer and american football, means that they will likely make the pros. Secret account 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • When did we say they played at stadia with 20,000 seats? I don't think we've been disingenuous at all. matt91486 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you want a rule that says "every person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, unless he or she played American college soccer in which case he or she is only notable upon playing a full year in MLS"? Nobody said that college soccer has huge stadia. Tech's stadium is probably on the small side for major conferences (definitely on the small side for the ACC - before we entered the league, we poured everything into the other football and are only now beginning to expand our other facilities). But the point is, college sports in America are more than an afterthought and if a person is distinguished in such a way as to meet the general notability criterion, there's no reason to exclude them because they play soccer. --B (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, what I want is to use the same criteria for American footballers as for players of similar standing across the world - that they need to have appeared at the highest level (i.e. played for the international side, not youth sides), or made an appearance in a fully professional league (including MLS or the like) before passing the bar of notability. One appearance will do, it's not necessary to play a full season. This would be the same as a youngster signing a professional contract for Manchester United or Real Madrid - signing up does not pass, stepping over the white line does. - fchd (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL is mainly for we don't know or it's soon to tell situation, most of these players would likely play in their first couple of games. Again the way american soccer works is much different from british soccer. Secret account 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, the articles can be easily recreated once they've appeared. But, without wishing ill on anyone, if one of those guys breaks a leg badly and never plays a game, and then goes on to enjoy a satisfying but thoroughly unnotable life working in a bookshop, raising three children and breeding cats, should their article have been kept? The question is, are they notable now, hence the WP:FOOTY criteria of not notable until they've actually started a game... which is why all those Man United kids mentioned above, all of whom will (barring injury or other disaster) have professional careers somewhere, are not yet notable and their articles will be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. These AfD's are "Wikipedia pedantry" as stated above, as well as ignorance of how the American system of soccer works. These are notable players and their articles meet notability requirements. --Friejose (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • God, I love people telling me that I'm being ignorant. Robotforaday (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I offended, but I'm calling it as I see it. I also didn't single anyone out, you brought that on yourself for whatever reason. --Friejose (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the WP:FOOTBALL notability criterion of requiring to play a professional game. If all of these college players are so great they'll meet this simple criterion in no time, surely? And if they're not so great, and let's face it, we have plenty of promising Academy players who get to reserve level and fade away, they won't have an article. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These players have signed or will sign with an mls side, Eric Brunner and other of these players have already signed mls contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have to say that I'm finding this a fascinating debate, particularly for a stub. I've only been a Wikipedian for a few months, and this is my first time really taking a look at an AfD discussion. It seems to me that people are really getting sidetracked by the fact that multiple players have been rolled into the same AfD. I also have a couple of questions that I think are worth considering.

1) Is it logical that a project of Wikipedia, such as WP:FOOTBALL, can set more stringent guidelines than those established by WP:BIO? There are a number of comments here that suggest to me that WP:FOOTBALL has set a bar for notability that trumps any other claim on notability that would apply elsewhere on the site, and that seems off somehow. Please understand that this is no way an attack on WP:FOOTBALL, or on the folks doing hard work on its behalf.

2) I really wish we could get a linguist to parse the WP:BIO section on athletics. I feel like part of the flaw is the way that this language is written - it seems to lead many to a conclusion that describing sports as professional or amateur is an either/or proposition, and that's just not a logical conclusion. A sports league can be either professional or amateur. A player in a sport can be competing as either a professional or an amateur. The sport itself - most sports, in fact - can be competed at either the professional or amateur level, so classifying it as one or the other doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd point to selections from two articles that are germane to this discussion in particular. First, Association football, which reads in part "Today, football is played at a professional level all over the world ... A very large number of people also play football at an amateur level.". Second, United States Soccer Federation, which is currently the featured federation on the Association Football Portal, and which reads in part "It is a member of FIFA, and is responsible for governing amateur and professional soccer ...". Both of those articles explicitly envision that football can be played as either a professional or as an amateur - how, then, is it possible to classify the entire sport of football as "professional", and then only apply the first of the WP:BIO guidelines as the notability test for everyone who plays it.

I guess all this is to say that I feel that the WP:BIO guidelines of Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. and Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). should not be read as mutually exclusive. It would seem to me that if Roger Espinoza has competed at the highest level in amateur sports - and I have to believe that NCAA Division 1 soccer ought to at least sit alongside the USDL in this regard - and also satisfies the criteria of having secondary sources published about him, then he's notable and this is a Keep. If there are no secondary sources, then it's a Delete verging on Weak keep. Of course, your mileage may vary. Mlaffs (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not suggesting that professional/ amateur is an either/ or distinction. What I'm saying is that wikipedia should have coverage of the significant players in any sport. In order to do so, it has guidelines to include those players who play in fully professional leagues. In football, professional football and amateur football are not two things played at the same level; there are professional setups and then at a lower level there is an amateur setup: these are not parallel systems by any stretch of the imagination. By attempting to cover all players who play at a professional level, that is already a massive commitment to writing about a lot of football. When we the open doors to amateur players, i.e. people who are not yet playing at the professional level, we risk watering down notability to a very high degree. Robotforaday (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Robotforaday, I moved my last paragraph back up so that the argument didn't get separated. Just so I'm clear, I do understand your point, and your concern regarding "watering down notability". I'm not suggesting that everyone who played at the highest amateur level is notable. The parenthetical reference in that WP:BIO criteria - "who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them" - is the important part. That's the problem with having all of these names rolled into this debate. I don't claim to know enough about football to say for sure, but while Roger Espinoza may not end up making the cut, I find it hard to believe that Patrick Nyarko wouldn't be considered notable. At the very least, having won been nominated for the top award for his sport would factor in, as would the secondary sources already cited by others. The point I'm trying to make is that setting the bar solely at having to have played a professional game at the expense of any other item that might qualify as notable is overly strict. It would analagous to the folks running the project on American football using the fact that Reggie Bush had never played a game in the NFL to determine that he wasn't notable before he turned pro, when he'd won the Heismann Award and was widely-known. It would be like the folks running the project on hockey determining that Sydney Crosby wasn't notable before he'd played an NHL game, despite the fact that he was the most famous prospect to come along since Wayne Gretzky. Mlaffs (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) (apologies for the mistake)
      • Please clarify how and when he won the top award for his sport. If he was in a winning team at the World Cup or named FIFA Player of the year it passed me by. The only claim that his article makes that this could possibly refer to is his being short-listed for, but unsuccessful in, a player of the year award for the amateur, age-restricted division that he played in. The regard in which he holds that division is attested by the report that he left it a year earlier than would have been scheduled. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • He didn't win the award, he was one of three finalists for it, but that isn't the point. Should we delete Tim Tebow? After all, he's only a college football player in a professional sport (American football). This whole argument doesn't make a bit of sense. --B (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, if/when any of these players make their debut for a fully professional club then they will meet the current notability criteria for footballers, any claim that they are sure to do so because the American system is different to the Euro system relies on WP:CRYSTAL. Allowing these articles to be kept due to the vociferous defence from U.S soccer enthusiasts would create a clear double standard between US youth football and youth footballers in the rest of the world. King of the NorthEast 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    • WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Patrick Nyarko is the subject of at least three biographical news articles [5][6][7], plus a litany of other articles about the team or about his being drafted. This article about Tech's loss in the final four focuses almost entirely on Nyarko. User:B/NCAA data has a long list of college football and college basketball players that have articles. I realize that you may not want to open the door to having articles about every player for every random soccer club in the world, but the general notability criterion doesn't go away just because one WikiProject doesn't like it. The articles that we are talking about all deal with the most prolific college soccer players and are far more selective than the articles on college athletes in the big two (football + basketball). --B (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as has been said, NCAA Division I is the top amateur division in the United States, along with the PDL. Also, being drafted makes a person inherently notable, not because of their potential to play professionally, but merely for having the talent and media attention to be selected. Che84 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm sick of this "making them drafted makes them inherently notable" argument. What rubbish! And NCAA Div 1 is amateur! Just like the Football Conference is amateur! If these guys are good enough to play professional, they will and then they'll be notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. They are at the top of an AMATEUR field, and not one linked up to professional ones. The NCAA is a stand-alone entity. matt91486 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's simply not notable. As I keep saying, if they're so great, these guys will play professionally in no time. And then they'll meet the requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a debate on their skill. They've done enough to satisfy WP:BIO before being professionals. matt91486 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Judgement of skill is subjective and POV. Criteria for fulfilling a policy must be verifiable, like whether he has played in a professional league. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. We agree on that. I'm just saying that WP:BIO explicitly also has other avenues for notability for amateur athletes, and these players meet those. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What?!?! It very clearly DOESN'T have explicit avenues for notability for amateur athletes! It talks about athletes in amateur sports (which football is not). The reason there's a massive debate here is for the very reason that it's not explicit whether or not that covers the individuals being dealt with here. Don't try and twist it. People above have claimed that the statement is ambiguous. Fine, maybe it is. But the one thing it isn't is explicit! Robotforaday (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I think it explicitly states this: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." It clearly has explicit avenues for amateur athletes. Some people believe it is ambiguous whether or not they should count as amateur athletes, but there ARE explicit avenues for amateur athletes. I don't appreciate your insinuations that I'm being improper. matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If they have the proper sources, yes, but if they don't, then no Secret account 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin Go lie down in a darkened room after you've closed this one. You deserve a break. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question to those calling for the deletion of Patrick Nyarko - should we delete Tim Tebow? Why or why not? He too is an amateur playing in a professional sport. --B (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's my final thought on this. First, I'll reiterate that it's simply not possible to define an entire sport as either professional or amateur - practically every branch of athletics can be competed at both the professional and the amateur level. As such, there will be people in football, American football, baseball, basketball, hockey, figure skating, golf, tennis, lacrosse, darts - you name it - that meet the first test of the Athletics standards in WP:BIO and there will be people in the same sport that meet the second test of those standards.
But, just for a moment, let's accept the premise that football is a "professional" sport. However, again per the opening paragraphs of WP:BIO:
"Basic criteria
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Additional criteria
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
"Additional criteria". To me, that means that the standard of having played a game in a professional league is a perfectly valid starting point for determining notability - that is, it's an "inclusionary" standard. However, it's only the starting point - it can't be the end of the discussion, an "exclusionary" standard.
Please, keep in mind that nobody - or, at least I hope nobody - is trying to argue that the mere fact of having played in the NCAA division 1, or the U.S. Premier Development League, or the Football Conference, makes you notable. It's having played at that level, plus having valid secondary sources, that's what matters. So, if Roger Espinoza, Patrick Nyarko, or anyone else listed in this AfD has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, independent of them, and not trivial - per the basic criteria, which must necessarily apply to any and all biographical articles within this site, even ones in which the Football Project or any other Wikipedia Project has a significant interest - then they're notable. Mlaffs (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[8] - Article in Richmond Times

[9] - Article in Washington Post.

This CLEARLY demonstrates WP:N and WP:BIO's criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" doesn't it? This isn't about amateur versus professional, America versus Europe. Is it possible for (some of) these players to be notable without making a professional appearance? Yes. Are all of the players listed for deletion notable? Maybe, maybe not. Espinoza has one source listed,Nyarko has several, two of which I've highlighted here. Am I missing something here about why the appearance criteria should overrule this? Paulbrock (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it will open the door to pretty much everyone who's kicked a ball. It's useful to have a cut-off point. Robotforaday (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes,a cut-off point is needed - significant coverage in secondary sources IS the cut-off point. I play football, but no-one is going to publish an article about me (playing football) in a reliable secondary source, hence no WP article.... Paulbrock (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I've been nowhere near amateur football level, yet I know I've been published in at least two reliable sources, yet I know I'm not notable enough for my own entry. Peanut4 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Robotforaday (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Significant coverage in something like the Washington Post? Maybe my 15 minutes of fame haven't come round yet! :-)...Paulbrock (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not all that far fetched, you know. The Liverpool Echo (circulation around 100,000) has decent coverage of sports being played at an amateur level. In fact, when you take the Liverpool Echo even more local newspapers published around Merseyside by Trinity Mirror (each with a circulation in the 10,000s), you could even make a case using this "two independent sources" idea for the creation of articles about children playing for their school team. While even I would admit that there is a gulf difference between Roger Espinoza et al. and some kid who's played for Sefton U-11s, all I'm saying is that it's so easy to gather "multiple sources" in this media saturated age that we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity. It's not an option to simply say "I can find something written in a newspaper about them, so they must be notable". Robotforaday (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Spot on. And now the BBC have pages for junior football, little Johnny could find himself a source from one of the most reputable and widely read out there. It doesn't mean he's notable though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet WP:BIO allows for amateur athletes. This can obviously be interpreted as a worst-case scenario as you state, but this isn't about U-11 players. It's about NCAA players. Let's not lose sight of that. People argue for and against precedent in every AfD, so let's not worry about U11 players and stick to whether or not these players do. matt91486 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Amateur athletes in amateur sports. We're talking about a pro sport here, a very big pro sport. Peanut4 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
NCAA? Amateurs in a worldwide (the biggest in the world) professional sport. Yawn. When these guys make it to the pro leagues then we'll be interested. Until then, non notable. Really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but I'm not sure we've ever come to the consensus that amateur is only valid in sports without professionals. What sports DON'T have professionals? Even figure skating has a professional tour. matt91486 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
An intriguing argument by Robotforaday. WP:N talks of academic papers as suitable sources, but I understand it covers reputable newspapers. Washington Post has 700,000 circulation, more than the Times, and the articles cited are about Nyarko, not merely mentioning him in passing as part of a match report. If there were several interviews of a 11 yr old published in 'big' papers, I'd want to know why he was getting the coverage and what (if any) notability he had.
Robot asserts we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity, though WP:BIO explicitly states that
"Failure to meet these (additional) criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included"
So I'm a bit confused! There is obviously precedent for following the WP:FOOTY guideline, and I can see why adding an article for every interview in every local paper is not sensible, so what is the correct application of this part of WP:BIO? Paulbrock (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

←For those who are interested, there's a parallel discussion going on at WP:FOOTBALL right now about notability of draftees. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per Number 57, never played professionally. BanRay 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Should we delete Tim Tebow, too? --B (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is the third time you have asked that in this debate. If I were you, I would attribute the lack of a response to the idea that it has little to do with the current debate. There is not an international situation to compare with in American football, there is large scale coverage of college AF. College soccer is played in small stadia, to small crowds and has minimal coverage beyond what is local, it is not the only way into the professional game, and as I suggested above, it is a red herring to bring this in. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • This argument has been filled with logical fallacies on both sides throughout, so we can't just single any one person out for it. College basketball isn't the only way into the NBA, though, but it still is treated with a degree of notability for college athletes, so I'm not sure that being able to get into professional soccer in a different manner should matter. matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


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.