Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keasel Broome


 * 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. If he eventually meets WP:NFOOTBALL, the article can be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Keasel Broome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested based on speculation as to future international appearances, which is never grounds for notability. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Mikemor92 has misrepresented the prod removal as "based on speculation as to future international appearances" to sound like this was used as a claim of notability. It wasn't. The Prod was removed with the comment "given his recent call-up by Barbados national football team perhaps best to see how that plays out before going to AFD". It's complete waste of everyone's time to be going through this process while the player is attending a national team camp that contains two international fixtures. There was WP:NOHARM and WP:NORUSH in showing some WP:COMMONSENSE and wait a few days to see what happens before starting the deletion process. Deleting an article that might well (or probably not given he's a keeper) be recreated within days creates and end-product that is erratic and unprofessional. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given that this indicates via squad number that he is the fourth choice keeper for his club, WP:TOOSOON would seem more applicable. Jimmy Maurer is clearly the current first choice keeper, with Kyle Zobeck filling in as reserve. The international game is not for another two weeks and there is no indication that a player who has only made a handful of appearances over the last few years in the fourth tier of US soccer is going to suddenly walk into the first team for a senior international match, particularly as reports such as this indicate he has merely been called up to a training camp and has not yet been named in an official squad, let alone played. The most important point is the we don't simply create articles on people who might become notable at some point in the future. If he plays then the article can be restored, which I will be happy to do personally. Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't opine on his future with his club for the very reasons you state; the lot of a second-string keeper is poor, let alone the 4th-string! That still doesn't mean though that this nomination doesn't fail WP:NOHARM, WP:NORUSH, and WP:COMMONSENSE, in addition to the misleading comments by User:Mikemor92. If dropped from camp, the article could then have gone to AFD - no harm, no foul. Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read WP:NOHARM? Because that's giving us another reason why this article should be deleted. – Michael (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think you need to step back and really read the various essays / guidelines you are citing for the following reasons:
 * WP:NOHARM is a section in an essay dealing with arguments to AVOID in AfDs! I'm at a loss as to why you think citing it strengthens your case.
 * WP:NORUSH states specifically as its first point that there is no rush to create articles. This speaks directly to the point made in numerous AfDs where you vote keep that we simply do not create articles in anticipation of potential notability. The second point concerning there being no need to rush to delete clearly concerns the quality of articles rather than notability. Neither of these sections have any bearing on whether we should or should not keep an article where it is a clear fact that the person currently fulfills no notability essays or guidelines.
 * WP:COMMONSENSE contains the key phrase Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. I do not see how an article on an individual who satisfies no notability guidelines could be considered a "good contribution".
 * Rather than just slinging a few essay / guideline links about because their titles sound like they inherently support a keep vote, it would be more useful for you to outline specifically why they do.
 * Why do you think they support a keep vote? I don't think they do. They support be a sensible person and don't AFD the article for a few days ... they don't support a keep once some over-zealous black-and-white editor has started us unnecessarily down this path. Nfitz (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2015 (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.