Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Alamo


 * 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 delete per WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Alamo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod (by an IP without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league (the PDL is not professional), and  claiming that he will play for them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. Also nominatinf Vito Higgins for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP He IS a professional player on the roster of a team in Major League Soccer. This has been discussed endlessly and I still fail to see the reasoning behind people constantly wanting to delete these articles. Just because he has not played yet does not negate the fact that HE IS A FULL MEMBER OF THE ROSTER OF A FULLY PROFESSIONAL SOCCER TEAM and is therefore notable. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may have been discussed endlessly, but WP:BIO remains unchanged; the fact that he has signed a professional contract is irrelevant. He may never play a game for all we know, and without playing, it's unlikely that he'll be notable, which is why WP:BIO is quite clear on the having to play issue. See this recent discussion on WP:Footy for more rationale. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Most people who sign a contract with a professional team end up playing.  He can be deleted if he proves to be one of those rare exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst most may do, saying that this particular player will is WP:CRYSTAL, and if he doesn't, how long do we wait? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete being contracted to a professional football club is not an assertion of notability. --Angelo (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article does not assert sufficient notability as he has not yet played in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still strongly disagree with these articles being deleted, but democracy will win, so I guess that's that. The whole thing about deleting these kinds of articles in particular just strikes me as being contrary to the point of Wikipedia existing. This encyclopedia is a data source of information which people all over the world use; does it not occur to people that soccer fans - epecially, in the case of Mr Alamo and Mr Higgins, Los Angeles Galaxy fans - would turn to Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source of information on their roster? Irrespective of whether the player has actually played yet or not, he IS on the professional roster, and he IS listed on the Galaxy website as a member of the squad. So when people come to Wikipedia, knowing that it is a valuable and comprehensive resource, hoping to find more details about these two professional athletes, they can't find anythingg because the articles have been deleted as a result of pedantry about whether or not he is notable yet. I just don't get it. It's not like these are frivolous articles - they are supposed to be helpful, informative, accurate pieces on professional soccer players that lots of people are likely to want to know more about. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fundamental disconnect comes from the fact that being "on the roster" is much more significant in American sports than it is in European soccer. In American sports, you are on the roster or you aren't, you don't train separately with the reserves or the youth squad.  The policy/guideline/etc on Wikipedia is based on the European system, where there legitimately are rather non-notable youth players who happen to be thrown a squad number but aren't notable in anyway.  In the European system, there is no clear line as to what constitutes a "senior roster player" and what constitutes a reserve/youth player and as such a harsher guideline had to be enacted to prevent non-notable 15 year old academy players from getting articles.  I share JonBroxton's position because as someone who, like him, is intimately familiar with US sports, it is frustrating to see this unique situation trampled by well-intentioned guidelines that work better in other league environments. --Balerion (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's aimed at youth players - if a club signs someone from non-League, they don't become notable until they play. I would have thought that even if someone makes the squad in the MLS, that without playing, they are still not notable - what would your opinion be on a player who signs with an MLS team, gets squad number 30, but then doesn't play and is released at the end of the season? I would say that player will never be classed as notable, and therefore we have to consider the fact that any player may end up falling into this category until they've actually crossed the white line. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The MLS website only tracks players that appear in a regular season or playoff match. Every season there are some players assigned to a MLS squad that never get a match (especially the 3rd GK) and are not notable in my view. Jogurney (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by tracks? This guy has never played in a game but has a page.  They haven't bothered to create pages for some of the newer players, but that doesn't have to do with whether or not they've played. --Balerion (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean the All-Time Player Register has no entry for guys that never played. You won't find guys that were on the Chicago Fire squad like 2005 draftee and signee Hollis Donaldson who had squad #33 because he never played in a league match. Until a guy plays, he has a real risk of winding up like Donaldson, who I don't think many would suggest is notable. Jogurney (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's just your opinion - in every other professional US sports league, there are plenty of players with squad numbers who never play a game yet still have an article (for example, Nehemiah Broughton) simply by virtue of being in the squad - or, even more outrageously, because of their college achievements (gasp!). Cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS all you want but the fact is, this article would not be the slightest bit controversial if the player were an NFL, NBA, or MLB roster player. ugen64 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Ban  Ray  10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:43, 6 April 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.