From 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 Hahc 21 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC) reply

James Kiffe

James Kiffe (  | 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 GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search on him and there is only 1 independent, feature story on him, which was from earlier this month. I want to point out in advance that I expect someone to say he passes WP:NSOCCER for "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" (he has appeared in 1 game, as of 9/22/14, in the USL Pro league). However, that mark of notability is a guideline and does not supercede GNG, which is the ultimate mark of notability. Nearly all of the gHits on Kiffe are social media-related, basic sports website rankings/playerfiles, 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 - sorry, I'm an idiot, shouldn't edit first thing in the morning - yes, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and is therefore notable. Needs improving to meet GNG, but that is not currently a reason to delete. Giant Snowman 20:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, it is a reason to delete. He fails GNG, which is the ultimate threshold for notability, not a sports-specific guideline. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Modify AfD: I am wary that User:Jrcla2’s WP:BEFORE search did not reveal that Kiffe was inserted straight into the starting lineup after being signed at the end of the season and since his signing has played in 5 straight regular season matches plus Sacramento's first playoff match – not just the one as stated in the article. I am also wary that User:GiantSnowman is erroneously claiming a failed 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 User:Jrcla2 seems to ignore 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
  • Comment: I believe you have misinterpreted my comment above re: other players. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used incorrectly most often when trying to argue to keep or delete something. That's not the case here. I am pointing out that: 1. "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." and 2. "... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.", both taken from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself. The players above are not in support of keeping or deleting the Kiffe article, but provided as comparison to previous widely accepted thresholds. GauchoDude ( talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - He has made four appearances in the USL Professional Division (a Fully Professional League) for Sacramento Republic FC which makes him pass WP:NFOOTBALL. James Kiffe is also notable per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Evidence: a quick google news search. IJA ( talk) 16:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • My argument is he fails WP:GNG, which supercedes any sub-specific guideline. Jrcla2 ( talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Your point is already stated above. Additionally, you do not need to reply to multiple people with the same response. GauchoDude ( talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I can state it to whomever I like, as many times as I like. Neither @ IJA: nor @ Rlendog: addressed my concern that I stated in the original nomination, which is why it was necessary to reiterate. Any closing admin on this AfD will see that their !votes didn't provide any substance to counter my nomination rationale. Jrcla2 ( talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
          • WP:GNG is a subsection of WP:NOTABILITY, however we also have WP:NSPORT to specifically determine whether or not a Sports-player/ Athlete is notable. However because you're obsessed with WP:GNG, I'm going to say that James Kiffe is notable per WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Evidence: a quick google news search. You will also notice that his coverage in these news sites aren't "routine" as you had previously stated. IJA ( talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
            • I must point out that in no way do the sports Notability guidelines supersede GNG. The SSGs are meant to help editors identify classes of articles that in all likelihood would meet GNG to avoid needless AfD discussions. For example, it is reasonable to assume that any English Premier League or Major League Baseball player will meet the minimum standard for GNG. But that doesn't mean the aren't exceptions - I have definitely seen articles deleted because they failed GNG but met the sport guideline. Rikster2 ( talk) 00:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL Rlendog ( talk) 16:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
    • My argument is he fails WP:GNG, which supercedes any sub-specific guideline. Jrcla2 ( talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
      • We have specific guidelines for a reason. Because there is a consensus that subjects that meet these guidelines are almost always notable, even if sources to demonstrate GNG are not always readily available, and so editors don't have to waste time debating the issue every time. So unless you have a particular reason why this subject is somehow especially different from the rest, meeting the specific guideline is fine. Rlendog ( talk) 21:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving. – Michael ( talk) 19:21, 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 WP:NSPORTS and the top of the list of professional leagues because both are clear that they do not in and of themselves constitute notability. The user who said that the criteria listed therein are meant to show those who are "more than likely" would meet GNG was correct, but I would again argue that 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 User:Jrcla2 created this AFD. WP:NOTE clearly states that an article is meritable if it either meets WP:GNG or it meets a one of the subject-specific guidlines that are listed - one of which is WP:NSPORT. I believe everyone agrees that the article meets WP:NSPORT (specifically it meets WP:NFOOTY). How then, is there any basis for deletion? It's not even a borderline, played once for 5 minutes; he's a current player whose has had 4 recent starts [1]. Though even if he had 0 starts, how does he not meet 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kiffe&oldid=1091564776"