Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Jeffrey (3rd 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jared Jeffrey
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous AfD in 2010 indicated his notability due to "inevitable" future professional appearances. As of the end of 2012 this man is yet to play in a professional league and the previous claim that a one-page article in a German newspaper is not enough for WP:GNG in my opinion. C 679 13:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't understand how he can be created a 3rd time, he hasn't even played pro football yet. Why he has reserve stats in the infobox is another fault of the article. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted because I'd like to see a stronger consensus given this is AFD 3. Courcelles 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject fails WP:FOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT - Consensus is repeatedly reached, yet the article gets re-created anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this closed as a Delete once and a Keep once, so the "repeatedly reached" doesn't apply, nor, seemingly, the call to salt the topic. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Previous keep was base on routine sports journalism to meet WP:GNG and on speculation that failed to materialise. This is a text book example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep His career is not over. He had some moderate level of notability and continues to play. What's the hurry, and why the continual axe grinding? He continues to play with Mainz.  As of today Jared_Jeffrey has been viewed 854 times in the last 30 days.  So somebody cares and uses this article. So we are clear, the article has been kept the last 2 times, and the same arguments apply. The article was "not recreated." 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exept that the article WAS re-created after a delete HERE.. I did not bother to fact-check your other comments. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Partially. I still think it was deleted only once.  As to the number of views, you have access to the same history I have.  I will take your expected silence as an admission that I was correct.  The citations (and there are more in the article than was true earlier) speak for themselves. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations that he has, in fact, done nothing notable in his chosen profession, do not mean he is notable. As for the visit count, I think that popularity (if we can call it that) alone does not make it notable - WP:POPULARPAGE. C 679 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep seems OK to me.♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it seems OK is not a good enough argument, your gonna have to elaborate more if you want this to kept.  Jay Jay What did I do? 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Previouly deleted 5 years old, played in the U20 FIFA world cup. Meets WP:ATHLETE under the association football section "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.". Additionally plays in the top tier German professional league. Mike (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't played one top tier game in Germany yet, those stats are B team and need to be removed, and unless the lvl23 is Olympics, then it isn't senior level, it's lower so.. Govvy (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He is a member of the professional team's reserve team. Itself a professional squad, professional =/ top tier. Also the U20 World Cup is a senior competition still, unsure if it fits within the definition but is still a senior FIFA international event. Mike (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He needs to play one game to qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL being in the reserve team doesn't pass unless he has played a league or cup game with the senior squad and U20s is classified as youth level and not senior level last time I looked. U23 Olympics allows him to pass know, yet I see no evidence that he has done any of that. There isn't much citations, I don't think there is enough there to pass WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does it state that the fully professional reserve team does not count? Also please cite where you are classifying U20 as youth, last time I checked the age of 18 was considered the point to which one becomes an adult. Mike (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously are you too lame to not read! It clearly states he has to play a fully pro game to pass, he hasn't. And U21s and below is youth level in football. Play a senior game means you get a full cap! Please read the policies and don't waste me time. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting anyone's time, I am asking for clarification on your point of view. You don't need to bring in a personal attack either. I asked for what "wiki policy" you are referring to and you keep avoiding the subject. Mike (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody made any personal attacks against you Mike. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mike, WP:NFOOTBALL says players should play in a senior international match (point 1) or in a fully professional football league (point 2) in order to be presumed notable. Neither is true for this individual, as far as we can see. He is a member of the Mainz squad which plays top level but this doesn't count as he has not represented them. The reserve team, who he plays for, plays in the Fußball-Regionalliga Südwest, which is a semi-professional league at tier 4 of German football, therefore failing point 2. As for the international tournament, it wasn't senior (as it was under-20), therefore not the top level of football, therefore failing point 1. Hope this clarifies things for you. C 679 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep fails WP:NFOOTBALL but I couldn't care less. This whole process of AfD is meant to filter out the worthless articles and keep the ones with meaningful information. The only thing which is left to make this article meet the criteria is that the guy plays one minute in a first team match. I refuse to vote delete on this decent non-stub article with multiple valid references. Many so called notable footballers which did play a few (<5) matches for a professional team have a one reference, orphan, one line stubby "article" which meets the criteria, but which I would delete which much pleasure. In contrast, there is nothing wrong with this article! I do believe he will get his selection one day, but WP:CRYSTAL doesnt bother me as IMHO this guy is notable even if he never manages to get his "needed" cap and quits football altogether. He played for several USA youth ranks and in three major tournaments and with the (reserves of) two big clubs. So stop pointing at the guidelines and use your brain, because this is a perfect example they are just that, guidelines, not cold hard rules. Just my two cents. -- Pelotas talk undefined contribs  10:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you, where is your evidence that he had that pro game? Because I only see reserve team stats. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry maybe it wasn't clear: there is no pro game (yet?), but imho it doesn't matter and the article should be kept anyway! -- Pelotas talk undefined contribs  16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you running on WP:CRYSTAL and against any other policy! Govvy (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LOTSOFSOURCES indicates just because sources exist, it doesn't mean the subject is automatically notable. There doesn't seem to be another reason proposed here for keeping. C 679 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - why do people call for SALT as soon as they see that this is the third AfD, without even checking that the latest discussion was closed as keep? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This guy passes WP:GNG. The subject-specific notability guideline is not a holy book, but I quote the following "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Mentoz86 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep easily passes WP:v and WP:GNG with refs here(espn), here, here, and especially here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess our man is just to busy prepping for The Olympics than getting a check playing soccer. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Portland: hmm, One ref has a picture doesn't tell us anything new, one says "Jared Jeffrey may be called upon for qualifying but ultimately miss out on a place at the Olympics." Which doesn't garentee he has even played in the Olympics, so you can't consider that a decent source for him to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. The only decent link you provided was from sportsillustrated.cnn which can be used for verification of moving to a top flight German club, however it's not enough to pass WP:GNG #1 Not enough significant coverage. #2 Fifa has him playing International youth level tourny's nothing at Senior level and he still hasn't played one Olympic match as far as I can see. Govvy (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete Still hasn't played a first team game in a fully professional league more than four years after the article was first deleted for that reason! Previous consensus has always been that youth caps do not confer notability. Number   5  7  09:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That he hasn't played in a fully pro league, and that the article was deleted four years ago is irrelevant, as the article was kept with the rationale that it met WP:GNG two years ago. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that this fellow is supposedly notable for being a footballer, yet in over four years since the article was first put forward for deletion, he still hasn't managed to make a first team appearance in a professional league. Number   5  7  16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Number 57. Arguments for "Keep" amount to "he has been viewed 800+ times in the last month"; "he played in the u20 world cup", and "passes wp:gng because he had a few articles written about him, which was enough to save the last AfD in 2010". It's WP:COMMONSENSE to conclude that "meeting the GNG for being a promising footballer", but then not actually turning into a top footballer, is not really notable. Especially when you consider over 500 players played in the first German division last season,, over 500 more in the second division, and over 550 in the third division, – it doesn't seem to be too much to ask that a footballer should have played in one of these leagues. He's not even considered by his team to be one of the top 1,500 football players in Germany. What's notable about that? C 679 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but when a promising footballer passes WP:GNG for being a promising footballer, he is notable for passing WP:GNG even if he never plays a professional match (and notability is not temporary). I do agree that it might be strange, but that's how the notability-guidelines works. Btw - the only valid argument for keeping this article is that it passes WP:GNG, all other keep-votes should be disregarded (if there are any), just like the only argument for deleting this article is that it fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to what you've said, particularly meeting the GNG for being a promising footballer in the past, it seems counter-intuitive to then say he is notable for being a promising footballer in his youth who never made it in the big time. Imagine the lead, Jarred Jeffrey is a failed association football player, who was considered as a good prospect in his teens. Jeffrey moved to Germany and signed with a big club, although never represented them, and he faded into obscurity. If you think GNG has been met, that's your prerogative, but I feel if the article's only reason for being is "for meeting GNG", then this should be absolutely clear. It would seem, due to this debate not having already been settled, that there is not a clear meeting of the GNG and I would therefore have to conclude that deleting the article is the only suitable course of action. C 679 14:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cloudz, I understand your argument and sympathize with it. I do think the article passes GNG, but only just. I agree that Jeffrey's news coverage is solely based on his potential (high school and youth international appearances are really only an indication of future potential) which now seems unlikely to be fully realized. Maybe the best course is to wait to recreate this article until we have more coverage of his recent exploits (I think he only appeared in one Olympics qualifier last year)? Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – footballers have to play in a fully professional league in order to pass WP:NFOOTY. Is the German fourth level fully pro? No, according to what we know. About WP:GNG; namechecks and one-line mentions are not "significant coverage", therefore he fails WP:GNG as well. – Kosm  1  fent  10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kosm1fent, I respect your opinion, but I don't think the 2 DMN or 1 AZ articles are name-checks (they dedicate several paragraphs of text to Jeffrey), and even the less substantial articles like SI are more than just name-checks. I know that GNG is a subjective test, but I've seen editors argue that far less coverage was enough to pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Impasse PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. There's no bargaining here.  It's just finding policy to support a position.  -- No  unique  names  05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually you misunderstand the word impasse. Which is partially my fault because Wikipedias article is a poor indicator of its meaning. I didn't actually read the article beforehand. Here are better definitions PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's clear that the article fails NSPORTS, but are we sure it fails the GNG? The DMN article is "significant coverage" in my view, and there appear to be a number of articles covering his youth international exploits and signing with Mainz (SI for example). My sense is the article fails GNG, but only just. Jogurney (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've reviewed the discussion in the last AfD and concluded that taken together the coverage is significant enough to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not fully professional. NickCT (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails NFOOTBALL -- No unique  names  05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - to the last two voters: noone disagree with you that Jeffrey hasn't played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but the question is whether Jeffrey passes WP:GNG or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - We pretty much all agree that this subject doesn't yet meet the special notability guidelines for footballers. The question is whether this athlete meets GNG. I've got an open mind on the matter, but I'm just not seeing it in the sources. Purportedly the subject of a big piece in the Rheinische Zeitung (sorry if I spelled that wrong), but there needs to be more substantial something-something to get over the bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (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.