Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Franklin
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 Keep. Same arguments as similar nominations, see this and this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sean Franklin
Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield «T•C» 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this is pointless busy work and this entire series of AFDs is a waste of otherwise useful time. This is not a contested prod - it's an invalid prod. This article has already survived one AFD. He is playing in preseason games [1] and deleting the article for 17 days (the season starts March 29) is senseless. --B (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally; for all we know he might break his leg before the start of the season and never play - we can't rely on WP:CRYSTAL balling. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- He already has played professionally. Nowhere do I see WP:BIO say that preseason games don't count. He is on the roster of a professional team. He has played a game with that professional team. --B (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite clear: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". Pre-season friendlies are not leagues! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- A regular season game isn't a league either. No game is a league. An apple isn't a telephone and a car isn't a newspaper. What's your point? The team is in a full professional league. This player has played at least one game with this team. Preseason, postseason, regular season - nothing in the guideline says it makes a difference. --B (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite clear: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". Pre-season friendlies are not leagues! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- He already has played professionally. Nowhere do I see WP:BIO say that preseason games don't count. He is on the roster of a professional team. He has played a game with that professional team. --B (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per B. Using the notability guidelines in order to delete things temporarily until all the formalities are in place, and forcing someone to recreate the article from scratch, is an exercise in pointless bureaucracy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument is based entirely upon WP:CRYSTAL and completely ignores the fact that an admin can restore the article with a couple of clicks if the person in question does pass the criteria in the future. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. Your WP:CRYSTAL assertion is based completely on that he has not played a league game yet, and completely ignores the fact that the player has signed up for the team, and has played for the team as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't twist it round like that. WP:CRYSTAL is about editors claiming things will happen (as you have done), not about claiming that things will not happen. As noted above, the criteria for WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". He has not played in a league game! пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In fact there is more to this person: he has played on the nation U21 and U23 teams. Now, I will not call the US a big football/soccer nation, but playing for the country is certainly a major claim to notability, and definitely on par with "major league". If WP:ATHLETE is calling for inflexible approaches and the total ruling out of common sense, then it should be either ignored or revised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was revised, but WP:BIO people refused to accept WP:FOOTY/Notability. English peasant 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- See, now on this one, I'd agree that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. If there are valid secondary sources out there that can be added to improve the article, I'd say 'keep', but as it currently stands, I'd say Delete. English peasant, I've looked at WP:FOOTY/Notability, and I think it's a fantastic standard in terms of helping to determine what to include - in other words, it's a great starting point. For me, though, the opening sentence of that essay says it all - "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below.". While they're deemed notable if they meet any of those criteria, that doesn't automatically mean that they're not notable if they don't. For determining that someone or something isn't notable, I think it's only reasonable to look beyond the project standards that define what to include, and onto the general community standards. Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- One projects guidelines don't override WP:BIO, which says that anyone is notable if there is media coverage independent of the subject. This player obviously meets that requirement - a cursory google finds [2], among others. --B (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- See, now on this one, I'd agree that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. If there are valid secondary sources out there that can be added to improve the article, I'd say 'keep', but as it currently stands, I'd say Delete. English peasant, I've looked at WP:FOOTY/Notability, and I think it's a fantastic standard in terms of helping to determine what to include - in other words, it's a great starting point. For me, though, the opening sentence of that essay says it all - "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below.". While they're deemed notable if they meet any of those criteria, that doesn't automatically mean that they're not notable if they don't. For determining that someone or something isn't notable, I think it's only reasonable to look beyond the project standards that define what to include, and onto the general community standards. Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was revised, but WP:BIO people refused to accept WP:FOOTY/Notability. English peasant 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In fact there is more to this person: he has played on the nation U21 and U23 teams. Now, I will not call the US a big football/soccer nation, but playing for the country is certainly a major claim to notability, and definitely on par with "major league". If WP:ATHLETE is calling for inflexible approaches and the total ruling out of common sense, then it should be either ignored or revised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't twist it round like that. WP:CRYSTAL is about editors claiming things will happen (as you have done), not about claiming that things will not happen. As noted above, the criteria for WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". He has not played in a league game! пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. Your WP:CRYSTAL assertion is based completely on that he has not played a league game yet, and completely ignores the fact that the player has signed up for the team, and has played for the team as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument is based entirely upon WP:CRYSTAL and completely ignores the fact that an admin can restore the article with a couple of clicks if the person in question does pass the criteria in the future. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: While WP:ATHLETE is often cited as an exclusive reason for deletion, reading the section heading at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is instructional. quote Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Waving around WP:ATHLETE criteria as if notability established in normal ways (non-trivial coverage in multiple reputable sources) can be ignored is simply bad for the project. Neier (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no appearances in a fully pro league BanRay 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to check out User:B/NCAA data. This is a list of articles that use the NCAA template - virtually all of them are US college athletes. Appearing in a fully pro league is not nor has ever been a requirement for an article to exist. Having reliable external sources of information is the ONLY requirement. WP:ATHLETE even says that amateurs about whom there are reliable sources of information are considered notable. --B (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it says that about competitors in amateur sports. Once again, football is a professional sport. Yes, it can be played at an amateur level, but that doesn't mean that there are "two levels" of the sport. It simply means that those who play at amateur level aren't good enough to play professionally. Wikipedia currently views such people as not notable. robwingfield «T•C» 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's an outrageous argument. Does the fact that Michael Beasley has not played a minute of professional basketball mean that he "isn't as good" as, say, Dominic McGuire? More significantly, does it make him "less notable" than McGuire? I don't know if you're an American or not, but you should remember that soccer players in particular are very wary of skipping college to play soccer (unless they move abroad at a young age, like Landon Donovan), simply because there isn't enough glamour and money in the sport to justify that - so like most basketball and football players, they go to college both as an insurance policy and to get media coverage that will give them a better chance of succeeding in the MLS. But this is all irrelevant, since WP:BIO talks only about how "notable" someone is, roughly comparable to how much significant media coverage a player receives. And high draft choices in the SuperDraft more than satisfy that requirement. ugen64 (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Aren't good enough"? Wow ... well, that may be true in some cases - there are definitely those who play at the amateur level of their sport because they aren't good enough to play at the professional level. There are also those who play at the amateur level because they aren't old enough yet to play at the professional level, due to age restrictions placed by the pro leagues, such as John Tavares. There are also those who play at the amateur level and complete their education before turning professional, such as Matt Leinart. Finally, there are those who compete at the amateur level because that's the primary level of competition in their sport, where the professional level is what you do after you retire from amateur competition, such as Sasha Cohen. Anyone fitting any of those categories could be considered notable if they have sufficient secondary sources, per WP:BIO. Regardless, I've said it before on the other Afds and I'll say it again - a league or a competition can be professional or amateur, a competitor can be professional or amateur, but practically every sport is competed at both levels. You cannot define an entire sport as one or the other unless it's impossible to compete in it at both levels. Mlaffs (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it says that about competitors in amateur sports. Once again, football is a professional sport. Yes, it can be played at an amateur level, but that doesn't mean that there are "two levels" of the sport. It simply means that those who play at amateur level aren't good enough to play professionally. Wikipedia currently views such people as not notable. robwingfield «T•C» 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to check out User:B/NCAA data. This is a list of articles that use the NCAA template - virtually all of them are US college athletes. Appearing in a fully pro league is not nor has ever been a requirement for an article to exist. Having reliable external sources of information is the ONLY requirement. WP:ATHLETE even says that amateurs about whom there are reliable sources of information are considered notable. --B (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Do you enjoy having the same arguments week in and week out? It's beyond stupid to keep "some" MLS players and not "others". Since the president has already been set that the MLS players in the 2008 MLS Draft should stay (much to the chagrin of some power tripping people around here) the rest should stay and then sort the players out later. And yes, just because X doesn't mean Y, blah blah blah, but then again I think most of the people against this are from Europe and don't really know how the NCAA works. Shame. GauchoDude (talk) 09:29, 18 March 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.
