Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wolze


 * 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.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Wolze

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

Young footballer without an appearance in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. He has youth caps, but consensus (e.g. here) is that these do not confer notability. Was originally prodded, but removed by an IP with the explanation "player is a member of current squad.. he will be play in this season..", which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Article has already been deleted once (via prod) for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also adding Daniel Brosinski to this AfD. Like Wolze, he is signed to a Bundesliga club and has youth caps, but has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both for failing the notability criteria unless participation in the national youth team is seen as performance at the highest level and their appearances at that level are appropriately sourced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been consensus for a while that only apperances in the Olympics (U-23) or full international team are enough to confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete My research backs up Number 57's assessment of the situation. Neither pass WP:Athlete, nor can I find evidence that either pass another qualification of WP:Bio. Nothing about either makes me want to ignore the rules to keep.  They can always be recreated if/when one of them makes a professional appearance. Vickser (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both as per nom. --Jimbo[online] 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Daniel Brosinski because he have played 31 games in german third league. 217.93.10.130 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the league fully professional? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, absolutely fully professional, in season 07/08 Regionalliga Süd, now 3rd Liga 217.93.10.242 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you 100% certain or have a source on that? My understanding is that the new 3rd Liga is fully pro, but that the old regional leagues had some semi-professional teams. Vickser (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true.. the "old" Regionalliga was fully professional, all clubs were fully pro teams.. the new 3rd Liga is a single league.. that's the difference to the old two-tier system.. Bneidror (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong. This is the discussion we had at WP:WPF some time ago regarding the Regionalliga issue. --Angelo (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom, fail WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete we already discussed the issue on WP:WPF, proving only the two higher tiers of German football are fully professional. 3rd Liga will start in 2008, and will be fully professional, but it is yet to start. --Angelo (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Anyone participating here should be aware that a recent discussion on WP:BIO reaffirmed the consensus that failing to meet a subcriteria of WP:BIO does not instantly confer non-notability. Subcategories such as WP:ATHLETE are guidelines only and if a person can establish notability by neutral secondary sources per WP:N they should not be deleted by virtue of not meeting any criteria of WP:BIO. BigHairRef | Talk 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't understand your point. This is very very obviously true (George W Bush would fail WP:PORNBIO, for example) but I don't see its relevance to the case at hand. Are you saying that the subject of this article is notable for another reason? AndyJones (talk) 13:00, 17 July 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.