Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thorpe (soccer)


 * 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. Core desat 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

James Thorpe (soccer)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Yet another player who fails WP:BIO because he has never played in a fully professional league. Delete per ample precedent, including this. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep yes he hasn't played in a game yet, but was drafted in the MLS and was named Division 2 Player of the Year Hatmatbbat10, a proud Wiki ped ian  (Talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although he may not be the "Jim Thorpe" of soccer, this player does have notability beyond his famous name, in that he's won some "player of the year" recognition on the Division II level. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think being player of the year in a minor league make someone notable. We don't allow player of the year from Football Conference teams an article, even though they play in a mostly pro league. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not true, most players in Football Conference and, in fact, a large proportion in the Conference North and South have pages. BigKennyK (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is true. The only players in the Conference who have articles are those who have previously played in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant achievements at an amateur level (championships, player of the year) do fall under the secondary criteria for athlete notability. Although what a player being drafted means in respect to Wikipedia notability has not been specifically defined (AFAIK), common sense should dictate that it falls under the same criteria. BigKennyK (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you have misunderstood the criteria. When it says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", it refers to sports where there is no professional level rather than the amateur level of professional sports. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree with that interpretation. The existence of a professional league in a sport should not automatically de-notabilize someone just because they had only participated at the amateur level.  There are an awful lot of Olympic figure skaters, Olympic soccer players, etc who have not turned pro (although, pro options exist).  In the past, many sports prohibited participation in the Olympics if you had turned pro...  Are you claiming that they are not notable, if they did not go on to play professionally later? Neier (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the USL Premier Development League is actually the highest level of amateur football in the USA. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are talking about playing at international level. This guy has not done that. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Olympics holds its own notability criteria. This guy hasn't played in the Olympics and has not played at the highest amateur level at a sport which has huge pro options anyway. Simply fails WP:BIO by a long way. If he turns pro and plays a game, recreate it. Peanut4 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that I have deleted the copyvio from here, there is not a single word of text left. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant - we don't vote on the current content of articles, but rather whether or not the article could ever reach an encyclopedic status. ugen64 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I made it a comment, not a vote. However, no content means no claim of notability, and that is grounds for deletion.  Kevin McE (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, that doesn't remotely resemble Wikipedia policy. We're voting on whether the subject of the article fits the notability standards, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual substance of the article. BigKennyK (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment is of limited truth:
 * a) this is a discussion, not a vote;
 * b) Any article about a person must contain a legitimate claim to notability. If the article has no text, that might be said to be missing.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete has not played in a fully professional league, when he does do so, recreate it. There has to be a cut-off point, and having played in a professional league is where the cut off point lies. King of the North  East  20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly recreate, as the orginal article was a copyvio, even though it was removed, it's still in the history, and there are no versions that can be used. Also I doubt a Developmental League player is notable. Secret account 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has achieved nothing. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless he makes an appearance for a team in a fully professional league. Robotforaday (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice, per no pro appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as soon as he crosses the white line, he's notable. Until then, he's a wannabe and not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 1 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.