Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kiffe

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. → Call me

21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

James Kiffe

James Kiffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:ROUTINE game coverage, and some aren't even independent sources (the UCSB school refs are for supporting purposes only, they cannot be used as primary sources). He may be notable next season, who knows, but right now, nope. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Modify AfD: I am wary that
    WP:NFOOTBALL
    , which is already clearly stated as passed in the original AfD nomination above that his response is in support of.
Additionally, I find it quite hypocritical that
WP:ATHLETE in this instance, however uses it as an argument in a separate article
.
In any event,
WP:GNG as always is the ultimate decider which Kiffe, in my opinion, seems to meet based on this and this and this and this and has various independent recognition
of his play and talent.
However, if Kiffe is deemed non-notable by the masses, then I would modify current AfD to include collegiate soccer players who have relatively equivalent or lesser claims than Kiffe. A few soccer players who seem to be affected would include:
— GauchoDude (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to all of the other names listed – those are case-by-case and have 0 bearing on this AfD. Per the sources listed, this is routine and about two players being selected in a draft, this is as routine as it gets, this is literally a list of many award winners (not an article about Kiffe), this falls under the same umbrella as the previous link which is a list of award winners and not about Kiffe, and this is a press release of award winners/not about Kiffe. The only sources that definitely counts is this, and the only other one that may pass is this. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep meets GNG and FOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.153 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a lot of passion either way on this, but in have to say if
    WP:NFOOTBALL says that players who appear in one USL Pro game is notable, then that is an incredibly lax standard. It's a second/third tier league in a country that isn't that into soccer. I know because I live in a town with a franchise and they get less media coverage than the local single-A baseball team (let alone the D1 colleges within a 90 mile radius). How is footy so much less restrictive than other sport guidelines? What's next, all triple A baseball players and NBA D-Leaguers? Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Pointless comment that's not relevant for this discussion. 204.115.110.20 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really since the whole AfD is based on an editor's opinion of a gap between WP:FOOTY and GNG. Completely on point to suggest that the SSG may not hit the mark of identifying players who in most cases will meet GNG. But your comment did do a nice job of illustrating what a pointless comment is, albeit not in the way you intended. Rikster2 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Football is a global game and is the most popular sport in clearly over 170 countries and receives more media coverage than any other sport or even all sports combined.It cannot compared even remotely be compared with Baseball ,American Football or even Basketball in a Global perspective through what you wrote may be true in an American perspective.it is most popular sport in countries from Germany No 1 to Nicaragua ranked 170 or Eritrea 204 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC) ,[reply]
          • Yes, football is a global game, but its popularity in every country is not the same. I would fully accept that a "fully professional" player appearing in at least one game in football-mad England, Spain, Italy, etc would meet GNG. However, in the US, third-division level players do not receive the level of press to satisfy GNG across the board. The standard applies a broad brush stroke that is not correct in all cases. News flash - basketball is also a global sport. But players in the top league in England don't enjoy the level of news coverage to be expected to satisfy GNG across the board, but in Italy or Spain you can bet the top division players do (and this context is what
            WP:NBASKETBALL tries to convey). Hence my point. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Keep passes
    WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Passes
    WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - there's a whole lot of
    voting going on here and not much countering to my AfD proposal. At least User:IJA acknowledged it and rebutted. I hope the closing admin considers this, regardless of what their ultimate decision is. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep based on some of the sources put forth by GauchoDude, I think he is (barely) notable. However, all of you citing FOOTY as the reason need to re-read the preamble for
    USL Pro does not achieve that, whether or not it is "fully professional." Are we saying that ANYONE who has played even a game in that league is more than likely notable? Because I would challenge that based on being in a USL Pro market and seeing the actual level of coverage for this minor league. In my opinion, that shouldn't be in the guideline and takes away credibility from WP:NFOOTY. Rikster2 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - I have absolutely no comprehension why
    WP:GNG with detailed newspaper articles all about him [2]? Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kiffe&oldid=1091564776"