Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Rufer


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is notable by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources. Arguments have been raised against that view but it doesn't have sufficient support to affect the consensus. Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Caleb Rufer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Footballer who has yet to make an appearance at a level deemed to confer notability by Wikipedia standards (per WP:NFOOTBALL) has only played semi-professional club, claim of youth international squad member in infobox, but no evidence he has played in an official match - but even if he did, youth internationals do not confer N. A couple of articles, but general sports journalism type stuff. Club Oranje T 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Club Oranje T 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Club Oranje T 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nomination withdrawn - 3rd Liga is fully professional. -- Club Oranje T 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, at risk of looking a little silly, further investigation reveals that his 2 appearances were in fact for SV Wehen Wiesbaden II who play in the Regionalliga which is only a semi-pro league. I think the discussion should continue.-- Club Oranje T 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

*Comment I added Template:Notability to the article, maybe someone can find something to prevent the deletion. Dusty777 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers, and as ClubOranje has already pointed out, his appearances in the Regionalliga do not confer notability. He also fails WP:GNG in the absence of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon further investigation, he doesn't fit WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPF or WP:GNG. Dusty777 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fails NFOOTY, but definitely meets GNG. Rufer has significant coverage in major newspapers – articles that are dedicated solely to him and could not be considered routine. See The Dominion Post: "Young Rufer determined to make a name for himself"; The New Zealand Herald: "Soccer: Sign here, Sydney urges Rufer's son"; an in-depth interview with spox.com "Wynton und Caleb Rufer im Interview" (in German); Frankfurter Rundschau: "Hungrig nach Erfolg [Hungry for success "] (in German); De Stentor: "Caleb op proef bij GA Eagles [Caleb on trial for GA Eagles "] (in Dutch). All in-depth significant coverage, none of which is routine. Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They seem to be about him as his father's son and notability is not inherited. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, his father is mentioned in most of those articles, but they are still primarily about Caleb and his career. Jenks24 (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What career? he hasn't had one yet. A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability - every kid that trials with a big club gets that sort of coverage; it sells copy. More so in this case as they can sling it off the back of his father. This is a still footballer who has yet to actually achieve anything notable. And do you really want to claim this De Stentor article as significant coverage -- Club Oranje T 07:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "What career? he hasn't had one yet." – that is your subjective opinion and one that I disagree with. "A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability" – the GNG would disagree with that, but it feels pointless to argue that against the well-meaning folks of WP:FOOTY when many of you seem to believe that no player who fails NFOOTY can pass GNG. As to him not doing anything notable – what he has done is receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sounds pretty notable to me. I fully admit that the De Stentor article is the weakest of the sources I presented, but it is still an article dedicated entirely to him and when the other articles are also taken into consideration, I think it amounts to significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * same argument as Phil Imray, the coverage asserts he hasn't made it as a footballer, hasn't made a significant contribution to the annals of history. the reason there are subject specific guidelines are to filter out the zones that get screeds of tabloid articles like sports and music. -- Club Oranje T 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gave a more detailed response at Phil Imray, but I'll still say this: I feel that you are trying to impose your own personal opinion of "a significant contribution to the annals of history" and not following Wikipedia's notability guideline. I also feel you have completely misunderstood the purpose of the SNGs – they are inclusive guidelines and not meeting one does not meet that the person is non-notable, but rather that GNG must be proven. Quoting from the top of WP:ATH: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways, e.g. the general notability guideline" (my bold). In addition, I will also note that the references given are not tabloids, they are major broadsheet newspapers. Jenks24 (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to his fathers page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are three principles at work here. First off, the GNG explicitly supercedes all subordinate notability criteria.  If a subject passes the GNG, it doesn't matter a tinker's damn that he doesn't meet NFOOTY, any more than it wouldn't matter that he likely doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY, WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF or WP:PORNBIO either. Secondly, the nom makes a common mistake: that of presuming that "sports journalism" somehow by having to do with sports fails to satisfy WP:ROUTINE.  This is not what the guideline actually says; ROUTINE debars casual mention of a subject in match previews, recaps, roster lists and the like as being indicative of notability.  Articles which are, however, about the subject and which discuss the subject in "significant detail" are fine. Thirdly, the subject's merit - or lack thereof - is irrelevant.  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" doesn't come with a "... unless he doesn't deserve it" or "... only if he makes a significant contribution to the annals of history" caveat. As such, that notability is not inherited is irrelevant here.  We're not giving the subject a pass solely because he's related to someone more famous.  We're doing so because he's received coverage in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources.  Whether such sources chose to cover him because of his father is a philosophical question outside of our scope, and outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Ravenswing  13:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Weak Keep: Passes WP:GNG due to adequate media coverage. However, it is apparent that the only reason why he got those articles is because of his father. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 12:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough coverage here to meet the main notability guideline, and as per Jenks24 and Ravenswing this is the important factor. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is not notable. The topic is a Run-of-the-mill footballer who has made no impact with his contribution to football, but has had a small splash of low level coverage which discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports) doesn't have consensus for meeting GNG. Please try to explain why you think the topic is notable.-- Club Oranje T 10:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources directly address the player, and I don't believe they should be dismissed as being run of the mill. Eldumpo (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2011 (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.