Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaël Kakuta (2nd nomination)


 * 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, though some of the "keep" recommendations were given lesser weight in this closure, and one "delete" recommendation (the G4) was also given lesser weight. Greatest weight was given to those recommendations based on an analysis of the sources. There is well-argued support for a redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football, and I think discussion about this excellent idea should continue on the article's talk page; an AfD closure as "keep" does not prevent the redirect from being made if consensus exists to do so. From an AfD closure point of view, what this discussion has established is that Gaël Kakuta should not be a redlink on Wikipedia. NAC— S Marshall Talk /Cont  19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaël Kakuta
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Youth football player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Any and all media attention is purely because of WP:ONEEVENT - his 'tapping up' by Chelsea (for those not in the know, he was asked to break his contract with one club to sign for another). This tapping up could have happened to any player - indeed, it has happened to other players, and they have had articles deleted, such as Nathan Porritt and Paul Pogba - and the fact that it happened to be Kakuta who was caught it no reason for him to have an article of his own. GiantSnowman 09:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only notable because of one event Spiderone  09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football per ChrisTheDude Spiderone  08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - he was not 'caught up' in it, he was found responsible and as such was fined a massive amount. Its in the interest of the encyclopaedia to provide knowledge on individuals that the public will search for and want to know about. Also he is going to have a professional career so I have to ask what the point of deleting it is, its just a petty argument -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also can I make clear i dont like throwing around links like ONEEVENT but in this case the event is him breaking his contract to go to chelsea, he was fully responsible for what happened, Chelsea merely induced him to do it. The appeal chelsea are mounting is to defend them, not him. He did wrong the onus is on Chelsea to prove they didn't tell him to do it -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was he fully responsible though? - "the club was found guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007. GiantSnowman 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm always for deleting youth footballers articles, but this one is particular. and could create a precedent in football transfers regulations, such as Jean-Marc Bosman did. This case has provoked mass of reactions in France, including the FFF's president, and Rama Yade, ministry of sports. Though he still fails WP:ATHLETE, I believe he now pass WP:N.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What if people forgot about him in 2 months time? You can't say this will have the same effect as the Bosman incident yet. Spiderone  12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's doubtful that anyone will forget this in two months.  Chelsea are likely to appeal the ban which will keep him in the news.  And even if they don't appeal, the fact that they will be serving the ban will also keep him in the news.  Either way, this issue will not go awayNamzie11 (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ban will keep Chelsea in the news, not Kakuta. GiantSnowman 08:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It may only be one event, but it's an event with far-reaching consequences. As he was a central figure in it and has received plenty of coverage, I believe he passes the notability bar. 8lgm (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Spiderone has a good point - saying he will have an effect on football is WP:CRYSTALLBALLery. GiantSnowman 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I love 1E myself, but a key element in applying that rule is, in my mind, how much we know about the subject that doesn't pertain to the one event. In this case, quite a bit.  Does that information come from reliable sources?  Yes, it does.  That's a prima facie pass on WP:GNG, and so the article should be kept.    RGTraynor  10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - but would he have received such coverage if it wasn't for the recent scandal? No, he wouldn't. As WP:NTEMP says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for individuals known for one event." GiantSnowman 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under G4, the player has done nothing of note since the first two discussions (he's been injured for the last six months!). The recent coverage isn't for anything Kakuta has done, it's because Chelsea have (apparently) broken the rules and have subsequently been punished by FIFA. Kakuta isn't any more notable than (say) Paul Pogba, who was signed by a "big four" English club, also in controversial circumstances. There is no guarantee that Kakuta will do anything of note in his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a vote yet clearly show disregard for other by not reading my comments? I addressed the main points you have made. The player himself was responsible for termination of contract and your comparison is poor because it is not an equal one. -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * G4 is definitely not applicable here, for the article differs significantly from the original version. -- Luk  talk 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion (not meeting the WP:ATHLETE guideline) has not been addressed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (...)This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version(...). -- Luk  talk 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the subject is notable for this event only. I think we shouldn't rush into any decision right away. Defaulting to keep. -- Luk  talk 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - While he may not be notable yet under WP:ATHLETE, he is still a notable person, even if it is only for one event, the media coverage is significant enough to warrant an article. He is not just another Chelsea youth player. He is more notable than Paul Pogba because the Pogba incident is just an allegation at the moment. Besides, Kakuta's was really the first of its kind - it sets a precedent for punishments and treatment of youngsters in the future. It has lead to discussions of banning transfers of Under-18s. It doesn't really matter what he is notable for, so long as he is notable. - mspete93   [talk]  16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this story could affect Manchester United about Paul Pogba, as his former club Le Havre AC went to FIFA. In that case, I don't think it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to say there would be consequences.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; not a oneevent case and I expect he'll be on the Man U team within a few months of his ban ending. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. And he is a Chelsea player in any case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I had him mixed up with Paul Pogba. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like a future star. --Muhammad (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all 'future star' comments are more than irrelevant, as being definitely against WP:CRYSTAL. Speedy deletion does not apply, but notability does not change, since we're talking about an example of a subject who received coverage only because of the improper way he was signed by his current club (thus, WP:ONEEVENT applies). Such content should therefore be included into Chelsea F.C. season 2009-10, and the article be deleted until the guy actually manages to play competitive football (in case he does). --Angelo (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - ignoring all rules, people are going to want to know who this guy is and will come to Wikipedia to find out. If not keep, then at least redirect it to a page that gives details of the case.  BEVE   ( talk ) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe he is not a "common" youth player. He is a single case on his own: It's THE youth player who was condemned for leaving his former club. This is an unique situation.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unique?!?! - even though Paul Pogba and Jeremy Helan are in similar situations, as is an unnamed Crewe player? GiantSnowman 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im interested in knowing why you care so much about having this deleted, we should have as many articles as can be justified. It defeats the point of the project to strive so hard to find a reason an article shouldn't be here, it should be just the opposite. So accept this article is going to be kept and stop trying so hard comparing chalk and cheese cases. Im not commenting anymore on this AFD -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care so much - i.e. I don't lose sleep over this - but this article, in my opinion, doesn't meet notability for Wikipedia. And I wil not "accept this article is going to be kept", when there is still (at least) another 5 days of discussion! GiantSnowman 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh look, the BBC has details of a fourth player. I'd hardly say that Kakuta is unique! GiantSnowman 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment for other users to note, the above user is failing to distiguish between allegation and proven fact. It is natural that Kakuta landmark case would spur a rise in the number of allegations, if anything the fact that Kakuta is cited in these aticles establishes more notability as the first youth footballer to "be found out" -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Kakuta is indeed the only proven case, as Childzy claims, then why does that last link I have provided say that "Everton have been ordered to pay Leeds an initial compensation fee of £600,000 for 16-year-old defender Luke Garbutt" - would one club give money to another based purely on allegations? GiantSnowman 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The arguments are now getting petty, i was merely making it known that you referred to it being a 4th case when in fact it wasn't. Furthermore the compensation isnt for "tapping up", its because the player is under a certain age, Burnley have to pay Manchester United compenstation for signing Richard Eckersley. Basically, the Kakuta case is the only current proven case of a player terminating his precontract to join a club that may have asked him to do it. So I've presented my argument now (not to you specifically, im guessing your mind isnt for changing) so let's just leave it up to others to vote -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One last thing - Kakuta went from Lens to Chelsea because he broke his contract i.e. he was illegally taken, right? In the Garbutt case, "Leeds chairman Ken Bates accused the Toffees of "nicking" the England youth international when the player joined the Premier League club in the summer." Both players broke contracts to sign for a bigger club. The only difference between the two cases is that one club was punished by FIFA, one by the FA. GiantSnowman 14:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not the only case around of Chelsea signing a youngster in controversial methods. There was a 15-year old Italian kid named Vincenzo Camilleri (he is now 17 and made his Serie A debut last year). It seems like a common practice from English football clubs, due to the huge number of cases like these (also Macheda and Giuseppe Rossi were hailed as quite controversial when they happened), so maybe the whole issue just deserves its own article. --Angelo (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another young player, allededly poached by one club by another, is named today - do ALL these players that I have mentioned deserve articles? GiantSnowman 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. As an aside note, Man Utd has five Italian youngsters in their academy (Macheda from Lazio, Petrucci from AS Roma, Fornasier from Fiorentina, Massacci and Pucciarelli from Empoli); and Empoli is also considering legal actions regarding Massacci's case. I have also already mentioned about Vincenzo Camilleri, the article is a nice reading because it is a proof Kakuta is definitely not the first case of a spoiled youngster. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - due to the media impact & attention that ALL these players are having/giving, I am more than happy for Kakuta (and the others) to be redirected to an article such as 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football, following the precedent set by the Nathan Porritt AfD, when it was decided that his article should be redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. GiantSnowman 14:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that there have been all these further allegations BECAUSE of the Kakuta case only improve the case for him being worthy of an article - as I said yesterday it sets a precedent. - mspete93   [talk]  15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it more as a case of the straw that broke the camel's back - that fact that Chelsea were punished severely because they illegally signed a player (and the important point is that it could have been ANY player - Kakuta just happens to be the unlucky one who was caught out) gave confidence to other clubs to speak out. GiantSnowman 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Are we supposed to think he is less notable than someone who makes one substitute appearance for a club in the Conference? 82.41.216.72 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That just shows the stupidity of the notability system, or at least how we should not follow the guidlines exactly - WP:Ignore all rules - mspete93   [talk]  17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said that a player in the Conference is notable? They're not, as they wouldn't pass WP:ATHLETE...GiantSnowman 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad example, perhaps, but there are plenty of such players on Wikipedia, and noone seems to be getting worked up about them. Is he less notable than someone who makes a substitute appearance for a club in the 2nd division then? (I'm not actually sure why a Conference player would fail WP:ATHLETE; many players in the Conference are full time, and "fully professional" doesn't appear to be defined). Anyway he is notable for something which has nothing to do with his appearances or lack of them. 82.41.216.72 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment When I said this guy was "unique", it was in the way he is the first to be condemned by FIFA. I aknowledge that many French youth footballers left for England. (Jérémie Aliadière, Anthony Le Tallec etc...)--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Create new article: Clearly Mr. Kakuta's actions have lead to a more widespread issue opening up with the likes of Manchester United and Manchester City now being reported by French clubs for tapping up youngsters. I suggest, since the only reason Gael's involvement here on Wikipedia is for this one issue and this said issue is growing in notability with more and more cases each day, that a new Wikipedia article is created to cover this new story in football. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have suggested that Kakuta and the other players are redirected to a new article - called something like 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football - until they become notable in their own right as professional athletes. GiantSnowman 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for pinching your idea there Snowman. Well I suggest we be bold and create the article, anyway. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of copying me! And I think you're right - we should create the article regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Do you want to have a go at it then? GiantSnowman 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not atm. I have to go to work soon. However, I shall get started on the article tonight. I'll be back around half past nine. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would start it myself but I'm at work as we speak, naughty me! But I finish in 90mins, I may create a little stub when I get back home, for you to improve upon! GiantSnowman 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 20 to one in the morning and I'm finished. \o/ The article just needs some love and attention to properly flourish. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 23:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep player has clearly become notable due to recent media events and it is reasonable to keep such an article as people will be interested. Eldumpo (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People aren't interested in the person, they're interested in the event he just happened to be caught in. GiantSnowman 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively the events that started because of him -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well no - as Angelo has proven above, events were in motion before Kakuta's story broke. GiantSnowman 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But honestly, have any of the other players or clubs you talking about been found guilty of anything? They havent, Kakuta is so far the only proven case. the rest have popped up because of him. Kakuta is the precedent that has started all these other clubs moaning. This is fact and i am merely debating your fallacies here, whether the article is kept or not is not my concern. P.s when does this AFD end anyway? -- Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there were cases reported long before Kakuta - as Angelo has previously pointed out. And the AfD ends on 14th September, I think. GiantSnowman 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What people? I am more interested in youth players at Premiership clubs than I am in fringe squad players at Rochdale. I know which I consider to be more "notable" even if a few wikipedian editors disagree.86.1.198.74 (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And are you still interested in that player if he is released by that Premiership club, and never plays in professional match? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I feel as though this is a bit different than ONEEVENT. Kakuta was already a prominent youth footballer, and this compounds that status. matt91486 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a prominent youth footballer doesn't mean you pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football. Relevant search term. Article on the footballer alone is not notable. --Jimbo[online] 19:56, 13 September 2009 (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.