 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- 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. Article also salted, given the likelihood of recreation against consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Jordan Older
AfDs for this article:
- Jordan Older ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am concerned that the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I have gone over each of its current citations and here are my conclusions:
- Cite #1, which is used five times in the article, references an article on the website "futebolinterior.com.br". The site's content appears to consist mostly of tables of soccer matches— its articles are pulled in from other web sites, and it does not appear to have any original publication content or editorial staff of its own. It's principal draw is for people looking to see which team beat which in year X, and it is plastered with advertisements. Furthermore, I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source. My web search on the domain produced a list of statistical information about the site (number of visits per month, estimated value in US$, etc.), but nothing about its role as an independent source of reliable news on anything.
- All of that wouldn't matter so much if the citation had an author. Instead, the author of the piece is "Agência Futebol Interior," which sounds to me a lot like "futebol interior", etc. Given the autobiographical nature of the piece, it might easily have been composed by the subject of the Wikipedia article himself.
- "Cite" #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.
- Cite #3 is a legitimate citation to a legitimate newspaper. However, the article it links to is not about the subject of the Wikipedia article, but rather to a player that he helped get to Germany. It could be used to help establish the notability of THAT individual, but cannot be used to establish the notability of the article's current subject.
- Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.
- Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information.
- Cite #6 is a link to a poll result. According to the page itself, in order to appear in the poll result, a person has to have received more then one vote from a "fan" during an open voting period. Jordan Older appears at the very bottom of the table as a person who got at least two votes in the poll. It does not say how many votes he received, and in any case appearing on a table such as this does not exactly constitute "coverage" because there is no "article" here. (Frankly, if this citation does anything, it rather embarrassingly indicates how NON-notable Older is.)
- Cite #7 is a link to a table of match information. Again, there is no article here, just table of scores. Like any such table or a business listing in a telephone directory, it does not go towards establishing notability.
- Cite #8 is a link to the Ventura Film Festival website— not an independent source.
- Cite #9 is to a legitimate newspaper, but the newspaper article it links to does not mention the article's subject. It is a news article about West Side Story.
- Cite #10 is to a legitimate news article— about the Ventura Film Festival. Older is briefly mentioned in the article, but he is not its subject. This kind of passing reference cannot be used to establish notability.
My own additional and independent review of evidence of notability did not produce anything that would constitute multiple reliable third-party sources. Furthermore, given the tone and style of the article and the fact that its principal author has no edit history other than its creation and maintenance, I am concerned that this individual may have a conflict of interest. This, combined with the insubstantial nature of the 10 citations the article currently includes, moves me to propose that the article be considered for deletion. Also please note that the article was already nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax shortly after its creation, and the nomination failed (the article was and is not a hoax— its subject still doesn't appear to be notable, however). KDS4444 Talk 05:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! I am a great supporter of American football, but I don't quite understand the objections made here. First of all, User:KDS4444 claims that the article does not meet the notability standards while, on the contrary, the notability guideline says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable."
- Cite #7 clearly provides that the subject was the part of a fully professional league (USL is listed in the WikiProject fully professional leagues). Irrespective of whether cite # 7 is a table or an editorial article, it clearly establishes that the subject was a player who has appeared in a fully professional league, thus meeting the Wikipedia notability standards.
- I have gone over each of the objections of User:KDS4444 and here are my views:
- Cite #1: User:KDS4444 claims that the articles of this website are pulled from some other sources and that the website does not have any original publications. I searched the Alexa.com website and came to know that a site ranking 489 in Alexa (sites under 1000 are highly authoritative like the New York Times) regularly uses content from and links to the news articles of the Futebol Interior web site ( http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/ ) One such example can be seen here --> http://bbs.hupu.com/4907578.html
- The example above helps prove the fact that http://www.futebolinterior.com.br is an independent source of reliable news, and can be used to judge the notability of the subject.
- Cite #2: Shows that the subject's team was in the Serie A, which qualifies it as notable because it is listed as a "fully professional league".
- Cite #3: The purpose of the cite is to help establish the fact that the subject has played for South America, Europe and North America. An excerpt from the source provides: “Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe, and he believed that Ledesma possessed the talent to make the transition overseas.” That clearly establishes the notability of the subject. I don’t understand the comments of User:KDS4444 about how it does NOT develop notability at all! It clearly does establish subject notability here.
- Cite #4 : The information in the reference provides that he has played in the top Brazilian Football League. Again I’m unable to understand how it is a mistake!
- Cite #5: It might not be the most reliable source, but it does provide valuable information and backs up the information saying the same thing as the other references. Nothing wrong with that!
- Cite #6: First of all, Soccer America is one of the most esteemed poles in the country, and secondly popularity and notability are two entirely different things. A very notable player may get the least votes, but that doesn’t mean he is not notable. Among all the England players, if Emile Heskey (or any other player) gets the least votes, he still remains notable. In fact, a player who is the least popular in one poll may be the most popular in the other. Further, if you know your football, this list is only comprised of American football legends, each and every one of them. So being low on the list full of legends is not so bad!
- Citation #7: Well, this is the official website of USL and it clearly provides that Jordan Older played in (at least one) fully professional league, thus meeting the notability standards.
- Citation #8 & #9: Well, every citation does not prove notability. The primary purpose of the references is to help the reader further pursue the article and reference the other claims about the film festival.
- Citation #10: Article states: “(The Ventural Film Festival) Started by Jordan Older in 2004, the event is now a volunteer-based organization that donates a majority of the profits to environmental issues such as forest and ocean preservation”. True, it’s not the main subject of the article; but it does tell that Older was the founder of this event. Thus, the purpose of the reference is fully served.
- Overall, I think article had some minor issues, but User:KDS4444 should have focused on correcting them rather than search for the reasons to justify the deletion of the article. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia that have errors of tone or formatting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t notable, or they should be considered for deletion. Therefore, my consensus is KEEP I strongly object to the deletion of the article and request the volunteers to help improve this article by correcting the issues present in the tone and format of this article. Usmanwardag ( talk) 10:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If you look, he played in USL Premier Development League, which is an amateur league. That appears to be the only independent confirmation of him playing in an actual soccer game with an actual team.Updated further down. LionMans Account ( talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP I reviewed this article from AFC and found nothing wrong with it. Usmanwardag found notablility. Two reasons that push me towards "Keep". buff bills 7701 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete (as hoax removed) If you look, you won't find his name on any transfer lists. A soccer player who played in as many professional leagues as this person claims would appear there. He appears to be a self-promoter from what I've seen. LionMans Account ( talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:LionMans This article has already had the HOAX vote declined/denied. Please stick to the issue at hand which is notability. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the deletion of my article about Jordan Older. I respect your right to vote to delete it. However it's already been voted as NOT A HOAX. This issue is notability here. Please correct your argument to address this. Regarding your claim about not appearing on any transfer lists here is my logic. I can find him on some but where do you find the transfer lists from the 1990's? If you could find a "transfer list" from then it wouldn't be on the Internet and you can't even find Eric Wynalda who is the #1 American soccer player of all time on a transfer list from 1993. Thanks again for your time. I think you should reconsider your logic and focus on the notability issue at hand.
- To refute your hasty claims a quick search finds transfer lists and more stats, BOTH PROVE YOU WRONG
- I respect your right to want to delete the article but more and more people are reading it and agreeing with me and my logic and voting to KEEP it.
- I have read over everything and all the references look solid. And I Googled him and found him appearing on several transfer lists and even talk of him being on the "DFL" transfer list back in 2004 (although this is not a newspaper report) it does refute your idea that he's not on any transfer lists.
- I see nothing wrong with the article and find it interesting. KEEP Eragon.raju ( talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to find those. Although the third link is a message board (generally not admissible), the rest of the comments on the thread seem to suggest people don't have a high opinion of him. The first two (same link, different languages), shows a transfer in 2005 from A-League (1995–2004) San Diego Flash (which folded in 2001) to Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–08) San Diego Sockers (2001–04), which folded in 2004. No team of those names played again until 2009. Just makes me skeptical. LionMans Account ( talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if people have a high opinion of him; popularity is not one of the inclusion criteria. Notability is, and as there are several references stating that he's played in professional leagues he seems to meet that one. I think, to justify deleting the article, you're going to have to demonstrate that those sources are wrong and back it up with appropriate RS.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 07:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- That message board is full of articles just about the subject, but who cares? They are just gossip for the most part and not admissable. The point still proves, by your own rules that the subject meets Association Football notability by having appeared in a fully professional league (and more than one even) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Association_football
- Knowing this why don't you change your vote to KEEP ? It's a simple matter of yes did he appear in a fully professional league?. The fact is (ref #7 alone proves beynd a shadow of doubt) that he did! End of story. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed in the interest of keeping this discussion readable for people with less than half an hour of free time. Doesn't mean the stuff in here isn't worth reading. —
PinkAmpers
&
(Je vous invite à me parler)
11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- Delete Semi-pro player who lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 23:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There are ample RS confirming that Older has played professionally. The references are a mess, but cite 7 is a record for a professional league game he took part in. Cite 3 is an RS and it states quite clearly that he has played professionally. I'm also concerned about inaccurate statements by some of those nominating for deletion. For example KDS4444 claims that cite 4 is "an article about soccer in German." I thought I'd have a look at it, because I speak German, but guess what? It's not in German; it's in Norwegian, as far as I can tell. I don't see how he can disregard a reference without even being able to tell what language it's in. Older is hardly a world-class player but there seems little doubt that he's played professionally, so that makes him notable by WP's criteria. To be honest this request looks frivolous.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
-
FergusM1970: I dismissed this reference cursorily because I saw it being used in the article as a citation for the musical West Side Story, which it obviously is not. In that sense, the language in which it is written is utterly irrelevant: the reference has nothing to do with a musical. Did you read my comment on this citation in the initial proposal for deletion? If so, then why not address this? If not, then... can I ask you to do so before you offer additional commentary? (Really, at this point, the strident nature of the article's creator is just giving me a headache. I am hoping you are more rational but am surprised that you don't recognize your Broadway shows from the 1970s (see, that last bit is a joke, meant to make you chuckle, Yes? Nuthin' more, nuthin' less)).
KDS4444
Talk
21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not Norwegian either, but Swedish. Which I know for a fact since I'm half Swedish, and fluent in that language. The website is a team website for "Ljungskile SK", a team that at that time played in the Swedish third division, and Jordan Older is only mentioned in passing at the end of a story about a match between "Ljungskile SK" and "Mjällby IF" in 2005, as a player that was to be tested by Ljungskile. There's also another story on the same website that mentions Jordan Older in passing, just saying that he wasn't good enough so they weren't interested in his services. It is in other words a reference that does not establish any notability for him. Thomas.W talk to me 20:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
FergusM1970: I dismissed this reference cursorily because I saw it being used in the article as a citation for the musical West Side Story, which it obviously is not. In that sense, the language in which it is written is utterly irrelevant: the reference has nothing to do with a musical. Did you read my comment on this citation in the initial proposal for deletion? If so, then why not address this? If not, then... can I ask you to do so before you offer additional commentary? (Really, at this point, the strident nature of the article's creator is just giving me a headache. I am hoping you are more rational but am surprised that you don't recognize your Broadway shows from the 1970s (see, that last bit is a joke, meant to make you chuckle, Yes? Nuthin' more, nuthin' less)).
KDS4444
Talk
21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not a not-a-vote, just a comment. I am the administrator who declined the request to speedy delete the article as a hoax. Because some sources validated claims in the article, it did not appear to be a blatant hoax, so CSD G3 did not apply. I had reservations about whether there were enough sources above the local level to meet WP:GNG and indicated that the article might wind up here. I also posted a message at WikiProject Football to bring in subject matter experts. I have not, and do not at this time, express an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in this AfD proceeding; my actions only related to speedy deletion criteria G3 and A7. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Article is about a non-notable footballer. While it appears that he played a few minutes in the USL Second Division with the Gauchos (probably not in a fully-pro league), there is simply no evidence that this article could ever satisfy the GNG. The Ventura County Star article isn't significant coverage, and it cannot be considered verification of the claim that Older played in a fully-pro league. We went through this with the earlier version of the article in 2007 (it was substantially the same). Jogurney ( talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed further lengthy discussion. —
PinkAmpers
&
(Je vous invite à me parler)
11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- Delete - has not received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources so fails WP:GNG, which outweighs the possibility of him barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL. The US lower leagues are only barely fully-pro now, I very much doubt they were 15-20 years ago when this guy was playing. Note to those !voting keep - to pass WP:NFOOTBALL you have to actually play (not just be signed to a roster), and you have to play in a fully-professional league, not just for a professional team. Giant Snowman 08:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
|
REPORTED IN NEWSPAPERS AND FULLY PRO LEAGUE SITES: http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23496 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html (respected print and online newspaper) http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol (highly regarded #1 soccer news site from Brazil and ranked highly on Alexa) http://web.archive.org/web/20020209014728/http://www.tricolornet.com.br/noticias/arquivo1999/990717.htm (Official team blog for Sao Paulo FC says he played along side Wilson in BRAZIL and for 3 fully pro Brazilian Teams) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, those links don't mention Paulista, União São João or Portuguesa Santista matches in 1994 or 1998 (like the cited article does). No one is questioning whether Older played a few minutes for San Diego Gauchos in 2003, so please don't try to confuse the issue.
Jogurney (
talk)
20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
|
- 'Comment' Claims like mr X played in the Brazilian Serie A can easily be verified/falsified using a database like this one
[19]. As you can see it goes back a very long time before there was such a thing as internet.
Cattivi (
talk)
21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
-
No results.
Giant
Snowman
21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I made a more detailed search on him, or rather three searches, with both his name and the name of each of the three clubs in Brazil that he seems to claim having played for (clubs that are mentioned in this story on futebolinterior.com, a story that apart from mentioning which clubs he claims to have played in has nothing to do with his career as a footballer), Paulista, União São João and Portuguesa Santista, with the same result, no matches played. For good measure I also took a look at those three clubs on the Portuguese Wikipedia (I speak a fairly decent Spanish so understanding written Portuguese is not a big problem), and it turns out that neither of them played in the Brazilian first division during the time that Older claims to have played for them (1994 in both Paulista and União São João and 1998 in Portuguesa Santista). Meaning that he couldn't possibly have played in the first division. Thomas.W talk to me 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
No results.
Giant
Snowman
21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:GiantSnowman just deleted TWO important comments I made. I'm officially calling foul play now and would like him punished for this and my article protected. It's simply wrong and unfair to not allow another Wikipedia editor to have free comment on his own page. As far as I can tell he has no more rights than I do. Even if he is an admin I am calling foul play, unfair block of my freedom of speech, whatever its called on here. It's simple NOT OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussballspieler11 ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- What did you expect when you crapflood this thread (as well as another userpage)? The only comment worth adding back was about the person with a similar name from the database. Might I suggest posting a link to the game the person played? LionMans Account ( talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @ Fussballspieler11:, yes, I removed this wall of text (including copyrighted information!) as it was disruptive. Most of your posts here have been similar (though not quite as extreme) and if you don't start contributing calmly, concisely, and without displaying OWNership issues then I will ask an uninvolved admin to intervene here. Giant Snowman 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- You also removed another comment that was short and concise. My long wall of text was important information to refute the claims of no WP:GNG. So I posted many links to show over 200 popular forum postings about my subject over around a decade of time. I also showed evidence of him playing in Brazil A, and Paulista A, but no one will see this now because you removed it, I feel unfairly.
- I've made a complaint already about you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
- Thank you for the time to edit my article. I respect your right to disagree, but not your right to censor me. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you think the Globo Esporte match report showing an "Odair" played for União São João in Serie A during 1994 is evidence that Jordan Older played in the match (because it was a mispelling of his name) think again: Odair was born in Brazil. Jogurney ( talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I've been reading this discussion for quite some time now and it appears to me that some people are trying to say that Jordan Older is not notable because there isn't any proof that he has played in a competitive match of a fully professional league. http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 This link refers to Jordan Older, that says that the team is excited to receive him and quotes "Jordan Older is a 33-year-old American who among other things played in the Brazilian top division". I think this makes it pretty clear that he has actually played for Brazilian top division and not just trained as a reserve. Plus, there are a couple of links I have already provided which show that he has played for over 100 minutes in another fully professional league.
- And here is another link, just in case. http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html --> It quotes "Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe". Any football fan or any logical mind would accept the fact that these comments can be made only if the player has played professionally in a fully professional league and not just trained as some users on this page are saying. In a nutshell, Jordan Older has played in the competitive matches of more than one fully professional league. I hope this will clear up many things. Usmanwardag ( talk) 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, many players are described as having "played in [league/country]" even though they were only signed to the roster as opposed to getting any on-field time. But that's irrelevant - while he might or might not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant, third-party coverage, and that is the deal-breaker here. Giant Snowman 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any example please? Can you give me the name of a single player who was described as having played in league/country but didn't spend a single minute on field? Irrespective of that, where does WP:NFOOTBALL say that a player has to actually spend some time on the field in order to be notable. I'm baffled here. In the above comment, I provided you the links in which Older was the primary subject, and those were not just passing references. So, how do you say he hasn't received significant third party coverage? Usmanwardag ( talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is an absence of third party, reliable sources. The General notability guideline is not satisfied. - MrOllie ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails GNG, lacks sufficient RS, drama magnet. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see that anything has changed since the original AfD. RS do not appear to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, and the subject definitely fails WP:GNG. Sources generally are either self-promotional, are not about the subject, or only mention the subject in passing. Taroaldo ✉ 00:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello?? The article clearly meets notability. I do not want to provide the evidence in every comment I make, but my above comments can be seen for this purpose. The subject does have significant third-party coverage (Already explained above). So, what's the big deal? Usmanwardag ( talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read the NYT article I posted about Adrian Melville above? His professional soccer experience in Brazil is likely very similar to Jordan Older's. Neither appears to have ever played in a competitive match for their Brazilian clubs. I'm not convinced the USL Second Division was fully-pro back in 2003 when Older played for the San Diego Gauchos, but even so, Older only made a few appearances (just over 100 minutes in total) which according to longstanding AfD consensus is not enough without passing the GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, your comparison is seriously illogical. We can never call Adrian Melville a professional player. He started his career in 2007 and finished in 2008. So, it's logical to say that he did not get to play in a competitive match. But that you can't say about an athlete who has played for more than one fully professional league and has done it for many years. So, what you are trying to suggest is that Older got signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues, got to play in each for more than a year (for 3-4 years in some) but never got to play a single competitive match?
- That aside, did any reliable and independent news source call Adrian Melville a professional who played for a fully professional league? No. But, did any reliable and independent news source call Jordan Older a professional who played for a fully professional league? Yes. I think you have got my point. My humble request to you is stop toying with these legends. They deserve a mention in history, let them get one! Usmanwardag ( talk) 07:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I want to point out again that these players and thousands of others have less RS (references/links/proof) than my article and all of them have played at only a lower level:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vardan_Adzemian
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagop_Avesyan
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Ambriz
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Barrera
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Becerra
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagop_Chirishian
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Draycott
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Guzman
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_L%C3%B3pez_%28soccer%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Motagalvan
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Peterlin_%28soccer%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Riley
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Scope
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Watson
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Whitfield
- I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. Btw,
Taroaldo, you've already been found out because you can't view the original article my friend! And some of the new sources are just from this year. So what you say is impossible. Btw,
MrOllie, there are 10 references on this page and over 200 decade old forum posts and scores of newspaper articles. Btw,
Gamaliel, I agree its a drama magnet but only because you fail to read the substantial references and admit they are valid. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival. Good day my friends and I hope you have no hard feelings.
Fussballspieler11 (
talk)
00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate you spend your time attacking other editors rather than reading what they are saying. I did not read the original article, but I did read the original AfD [20], where editors clearly had serious concerns about the references. A review of the references from the current article, coupled with a Google search, reveals the same concerns. Therefore, nothing has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 00:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. Btw,
Taroaldo, you've already been found out because you can't view the original article my friend! And some of the new sources are just from this year. So what you say is impossible. Btw,
MrOllie, there are 10 references on this page and over 200 decade old forum posts and scores of newspaper articles. Btw,
Gamaliel, I agree its a drama magnet but only because you fail to read the substantial references and admit they are valid. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival. Good day my friends and I hope you have no hard feelings.
Fussballspieler11 (
talk)
00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No real quality sources to establish notability. The Banner talk 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete due to the absence of third party, reliable sources. It definitely fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo ( talk) 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP Hello KDS4444 . I am a crazy supporter of football and am a reader of football related articles in Wikipedia. But in this scenario, I have to oppose to your decision as I think the article should be kept.
- For #Cite 01: you have mentioned that: “I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source.”
Please have a look at the following links. All of the articles below are using reference from Futebolinterior.com.br. So do you claiming that all of the articles are based on useless references? [ 1] [ 2] [ 3] [ 4] [ 5] [ 6] All the articles that are using references from Futebolinterior.com.br can be found below: [ the articles]
- For #Cite 02: You have claimed that Cite #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.
- But if you have a look at the following articles, you can easily see that the articles are using Wikilink as reference.
[ 1], [ 2] I have just given two examples. But many examples can easily be found, so whatever you claimed is inappropriate.
- For #Cite 03: The newspaper article clearly states that Mr. Jordan Older is a professional and veteran football player. So, it certainly can be used for establishing the notability of the article's current subject.
- For #Cite 04: You have said Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.
First of all, I have to say that the language is Swedish, not German. I have do the translation for you. Please go to the following Link: [ 4]. Here, you can clearly see that Mr Jordan Older has played in the Brazilian Top Division. So, this reference can also be used.
- For #Cite 05: You said Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information. Although it may not be a reliable source, it states that [ Link (translated)] Jordan is a Striker as well as the name of the teams.
- For #Cite 06: Jordan Older may not have received that many votes, but you can not claim that he is not notable. According to: Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2).
- For #Cite 07: The citation indicates that Jordan has been a player of the team San Diego Gauchos. You have made the article nominated for deletion. But again, in accordance to Wikipedia’s rules for Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2), it is clearly stated that Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable.
- For #Cite 08 and 09: These 2 citations were added to state about his present situation and what is he doing at present. Although they may not make him notable as a player, but they say what he is doing at present.
- For #Cite 10: As the article is about Jordan Older and as it says that he started this film festival, this citation can be added in favor of his article.
- So, after mentioning the things above, I think the article meets the criteria of Notability of Wikipedia and thus, it should be kept and not be deleted. Thank you. Sourov0000 ( talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability. Once again, doesn't mean that there aren't any useful comments in here. —
PinkAmpers
&
(Je vous invite à me parler)
11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I just want to make a brief summary of things as I see them now. I was very upset when I spent an hour copy and pasting 200 references proving logically, in my personal opinion, the fame and notability of my subject only to have them deleted within a few minutes of posting them by a new admin who suddenly came into the discussion when we already had one admin, do we really need two admins and 20 or so editors? But, yes, that upset me. Mostly because I spent a long time researching the information and because the admin is also one of the "deleters" of my article so he's got his opinion and he's deleting evidence against it and... he also deleted another important and very short comment I made. I still don't think this is ok, but I apologize if in my astonishment of having an hour of my life trashed I may have appeared angry. Sincere apology and I hope we can all be friends. I respect everyone's right to delete and disagree with me. It's a free world. I think I have a way that we can all be happy about this and I will delete my article myself if the main detractors/deleters can come to an objective list of what is required for wp:gng and association football notability. Because I honestly am baffled how anyone can say my subject is not notable. Fans are still posting about him a decade after he retired on major soccer forums that I read around the world (dont read this as I'm saying its a viable proof of anything, its just a supporting fact to his fame and notability.) So can the deleters make a list of what exact criteria need to be met to satisfy wp:gng and football notability and be specific? This will also be a learning opportunity for me. Like I said I will delete my article myself if I can see my own failure to understand something. This will save 20+ people from another 6 years of pointless debate maybe. Here is what I have read in the form of a probably check list to satisfy notability: :::(✔ means it's proved in my opinion)::: ✔ 1) played in a fully professional league or a national cup (reference #7 proves this according to GiantSnowman, even barely) and subject's Facebook shows another full pro USL team 1 year before the start of the MLS and that he played in the Swiss Cup in 1993 which is a national level event, I read that national cups also warrant notability. ✔ 2) GNG Checklist: ✔* 1. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
✔* 2. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
✔* 3. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
✔* 4. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
✔ * 5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]
✔ * 6. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
✔ * 7. A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
(above is copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) So there is my :::✔check::: list for Association Football notability and WP:GNG notability. It all basically comes down to the hard facts listed in ref#1#3#4#5#7 and the opinion of the editors and mostly the admins. GiantSnowman already agreed that Association Football notability is met (barely) and like I said if the deleters can come up with some specific reasons why WP:GNG is not met for a popular soccer retired soccer player who runs a popular film festival (the largest film festival in Ventura County, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country, I did my research), and if the specific reasons make sense logically to me I will delete my own article (if that's possible.) I think this is fair. One the same note, if there are no specific reasons why conditions 1 through 5 (since 6 & 7 are up to the whim of the admins) aren't met then I think a gentleman would agree to step down and keep the article. I'm over my anger at my comments being deleted and don't want to spend hours each day saying the same thing for 4 more days and don't want around 20 other interested editors to waste more time so this sounds like a good solution to me? I respect everyone's right to disagree and even to delete my article or to ban/delete my account. I just hope everyone uses logic and is honest since God is watching. I hope everyone is having a great night/day and let me know your specific reasons why a nothing amateur soccer player and nobody film festival owner is not notable, guys and gals... Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
Section Break One
- Comment. I don't have anything to say on the merits here, because I'm not going to spend half a bloody hour wading through 80k of text before I have my coffee. But I will say this - I've seen a lot of AFDs where editors placed their faith in having equal numbers of Keep and Delete recommendations, only to find that it is not the number of !votes that count but the strength of their argument. I've also seen debates where editors pointed to other articles and drew similarities - but that's absolutely not relevant in any way, shape, or form. This article has to stand on its own merits, its own references, its own notability. Does it? At first glance, no. But I'll look at the refs and make my own judgement later today or tomorrow. For now - guys, calm down. If you need 1800 words to make your point, you're doing it wrong. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG, not sufficient RS. And I actually just spent 20 minutes wading through the Afd and the sources provided, but still fail to see GNG fulfilled. Just a note to Fussballspieler11: your very vocal defense of the article, and your tendency to comment on almost every vote here does the article a disservice; this added to your sulky mood, and your declared feeling of being attacked by a experienced editors just makes this worse. Please assume good faith and even the assumption of good faith. Lectonar ( talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reply to Comment: Yeah, that baffles me, too. What's the big deal that you have to write more than 18k of text? That usually happens when you are trying to defend the undefendable! Imagine someone saying on this thread that an athlete who has been signed by more than one fully professional league and played for each for more than a year always remained a reserve player? Many of the comments are just based on speculation like the article might fail GNG, might not have sufficIent RS, might not have third party coverage, subject might not have played in a competitive match, and the like. I don't understand the host of controversies here. The facts are: 1- Older has played for more than one fully professional league and played in a competitive match (Cite #3,4,5,6 verify that), 2- He has been mentioned by a number of third party sources and they are not just passing references (Cite #1,3,4,5 verify that). Hence, the article meets both the criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong! Usmanwardag ( talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: Therein lies the problem. We have lots of newspaper articles saying he's played in Brasil top division, but a database of Brasilian football doesn't have his name listed and we can't find any records of him playing in an actual game. We have proof that he was in the lineup for 4 USL-2 games (playing in at least two of them). He claims to have played in European leagues, but the only transfer list (which would have his signing) only shows a transfer between two US indoor teams, neither of which were playing that season. It seems like, at best, he was a trialist for various teams, but never actually signed. At best, the article could be a keep with an extremely lean rewrite (only showing he played in USL-2), but I doubt that alone would meet WP:GNG. LionMans Account ( talk) 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator's in-depth assessment of the sources. For what it's worth, the bizarre behaviour of the 'keep' side of this AFD, including huge walls of text, multiple bolded "KEEP" votes, and even a spurious complaint at ANI, are rarely a sign of a good-faith attempt at an article and certainly haven't helped its case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the nominator's assessment of the sources "in-depth." His evaluation of at least one of them was so cursory that he didn't even notice what language it was in - he said German, but I speak German and that article is all Greek to me. Actually Norwegian, but you get my point.--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please concentrate on the discussion, and not on the behavior of the 'keep' side of the AFD. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmanwardag ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, here we go. I looked at the sources, one by one, and will discuss them below. I see the concerns from the nominator, and the initial responses, but I've skipped most of the discussion in favor of taking a fresh look. So some of these points have likely been mentioned above, and if so - oh well.
- Ref 1 - There's no author mentioned, and the article has the feel of a press release. The site does not appear to have the sort of editorial control or responsibility that is typical of reliable sources. I'm not impressed.
- Ref 2 - Ref 2 is a Wikipedia article, and thus is not suitable as a reference. At all.
- Ref 3 - This ref is a local news article discussing a 19-year-old prospect signed with a club in Germany. Older is mentioned and quoted, but the focus of the article is on the prospect.
- Ref 4 - This ref is a match report for a game in which Older did not play - and, indeed, seems to predate his time with the club. A club official mentions that Older was signed, but this source isn't about Older at all. It does not confirm that he played in a professional game with anyone - and predates his time with this club, so doesn't confirm that he played any minutes with them, either. We also have another ref from the same source ( here) that shows Older not making the team.
- Ref 5 - This ref purports to be a team's official blog. I ignore, for the moment, the fact that we do not use blogs as sources generally. The ref is used to confirm that he had been invited to play for two other teams - São Paulo FC and Fluminense - but this comes from a quote from Older himself saying that he had been invited to play for those teams. At best, this ref confirms that Older asked a team in São Paulo for a workout, and was declined.
- Ref 6 - Ref 6 shows that Older received at least two write-in votes in a fan poll. The poll asked fans to set the roster for the US Team for the 1998 World Cup. The article states that Older "...was voted to the fans selection of the 1998 USA World Cup Roster in an Internet poll..." and that's not precisely true. This doesn't serve a claim of notability, because all it confirms is that at least two people put his name in the voting (since people who got only one vote were excluded from the list). That's it.
- Ref 7 - OK, here he's listed playing 12 minutes in relief for the San Diego Gauchos. A roster from that year shows that Older played 117 minutes over the course of 4 matches, taking one shot and committing one foul. See here. Does this team (and that league) meet the standards we require for top-tier professional clubs?
- Ref 8 - This confirms Older's involvement in the film festival. Good as far as it goes, but does nothing for notability in and of itself. The notability here would come from the festival itself. So - is the Ventura Film Festival notable? Would its founder also be notable as a result, just for that involvement?
- Ref 9 - This ref does not mention Older at all, in any capacity. It mentions the film festival, briefly - but that speaks to the festival, not to its founder. At best, it would be placed at Ventura Film Festival.
- Ref 10 - Again, this is a news source that confirms that Older founded the festival. It does not discuss Older in any depth.
- Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see the case for notability from these references. As far as football is concerned, the only thing we can confirm is that he played 4 games for the Gauchos. I can find no similar records for the other teams listed - match reports, rosters, etc - to confirm time in top tier Brazilian leagues. I'll see if something else came up in the discussion above, but I'm inclined to recommend Delete here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
@everyone I'm not trying to be rude here. But maybe if you read what's been said again by GiantSnowman, you'll see some of the errors in your reasoning and your attempted use of invalid sources according to Wikipedia and circular logic (banning me from using editor reviewed news source while using other non-editor reviewed private blogs yourself, banning me from talking about other stuff while talking about other stuff frequently yourselves) GiantSnowman's WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments
GitantSnowman's use of non-editorial reviewed private blog/web sites for main his main arguments to refute my subjects notability while at the same time many try to say that I can't official league match rosters and statistics and editor reviewed AND WELL RESPECTED news publications tha already appear over 500 times as valid references on Wikipedia
GiantSnowman deleting two of my comments that I feel are valid to supporting, if not proving, WP:GNG
NOTE: ----------> There already is another uninvolved admin here, you're the 2nd admin here GiantSnowman, btw GiantSnowman admits subjects passes WP:NFOOTBALL
GiantSnowman saying that its strange for editors to be supporting KEEP of my article but the deleters are normal? Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased?
Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased? I think GiantSnowman and the editor who came back after 6 years and 10 new references is strange. And how the article was labeled a hoax within minutes of it being created by me means someone was watching it 24/7 no other way to so quickly define a hoax (hoax was denied by C.Fred) Strange is how multiple deleters use the same language to minimize the repuation of my subject by calling him "amateur" and only played a "few minutes" when all the teams listed on his resume are fully professional. Strange is how GiantSnowman argues not passing WP:GNG but then censors and deletes my comments hinting at proof that he is very famous. Strange is the anonymous KEEP vote that came in on this talk page and then GiantSnowman later makes claims of "stranger ... is editors coming out of nowhere" - GiantSnowman Strange is how someone who is not notable can have such attention to his Wikipedia page that over 20 editors and 2 admins have spent 3 days now and thousands of lines of text trying to prove its notability. (self contradicting reality again.) Once again, I've already called foul play because of: 1) its strange that my article was immediate vandalized with a fake hoax delettion attempt minutes after I wrote it, meaning that someone was following it with a search script or hitting refresh every 60 seconds or so 24/7 7 days a week, its not possible to decide if its a hoax with 10 new references and a totally new article (and to find the article) that quickly 2) its strange that the article was deleted 6 years ago at the same time as a business conflict the subject had about a hostile take over of his film festival 3) its strange that the fact that the same deleter from 6 years ago badly muffed his critique of the new article just giving a blanket critisicm and clearly not really reading the new references 4) its strange that the fact that some deleters claimed that they read the old article and its references when the old article is not available on Wikipedia anymore 5) its strange that i was trying to write the article without a username and the same user kept denying it and then deleted his own talk page to hide my communications with him and then my subjects original article was zapped clean from wikipedia forever, so i created a username for the first time resulting in the article being approved and a KEEP vote from the original approver 6) its strange that editors went as far to have to have their comments striked out by C.Fred, they risked their reputations by bordering on poking fun and minimizing my subjects career 7) its strange several deleters use the same words "a few minutes" and "amateur", I'm not saying it was the same user with two accounts or more but it seems like there is a team working here and I have read about the existance of Wiki-gangs (look it up yourself if you dont know what that is) now dont put words in my mouth, i'm not saying this is true, just saying its strange to me 8) its strange to me that GiantSnowman is now calling for a "2nd admin" (perhaps his friend) when he is the "2nd admin" we already had C.Fred (not acusing anyone of doing this, but its strange) Anyway these things seem suspicious to me and I will gladly delete my own article if you can show me how the scores of editor reviewed news publications (already used over 500 times on Wikipedia), starring in national and International TV commericals for Intel Pentium, Snickers, Pioneer/Phillips, Reebok, fan votes to the World Cup roster, owning his own international film festival, giving awards to Academy Award winners, personal friends with Pele and David Beckham, able to place local American kids on major German professional soccer teams as an agent, having played in 3 continents and around 7 different countries, and a huge delete discussion on Wikipedia is not notable. As a fan of early American soccer players it really just baffles my mind the opposition here. Thanks again and I respect your right to delete my article and expect you to give me the same rights you have. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject-specific guidelines which everyone agrees passes by means of WP:NFOOTBALL.
|
- Delete. The subject appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL by having played a few minutes in USL2, which is listed at WP:FPL. That is a presumption of notability. However, that does not mean he is guaranteed an article. I haven't yet seen evidence of enough reliable non-trivial independent coverage to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- User:Struway2 I realize that everything is a consensus on Wikipedia, but do you realize that it's not required to have both NFOOTBALL and GNG? And please refrain from using diminuative exaggerations in describing my subject to minimize his reputation. He played more than a few minutes and you are just mimicing the others. Show some respect please. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - Fussballspieler11 has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" before quickly changing it to "my subject - a very telling slip-up. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I admit that, I'm at work emailing customers so I made a typo. Have you ever typed a word so many times that you type it on accident when you don't mean it? I have not been paid to write this article pr hired in any way by my subject. I am simply a fan. I'm not allowed to mention the person above because he threatened to ban me if I did it so I'm not sure what I can do. He lied, I caught him, he threatened to ban me. Nice system we have here. I made a typo I'll admit that but the subject is not my customer. And even if he was, there is nothing wrong with hiring a Wikipedia author to write your article. It's done everyday. But I repeat, I have not been hired by my subject. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where have I lied? Either provide evidence or strike your unfounded accusation (yet another infraction we can add to a slowly ever-growing list). Giant Snowman 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- And from day one I was upfront with C.Fred (admin) about being a fan who was in touch with the subject on his Facebook page to get the photo for the article. You guys should check out his Facebook to see other proofs of the claims in the article that might not be valid references because they are newspapers from Switzerland outlining the Swiss Cup that Jordan Older played in in 1993 (which also qualifies as notable under sports because its a nation wide cup competition.) Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding as to what "presumed" means. I looked it up:
presumed past participle, past tense of pre·sume (Verb)
Verb
Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability: "I presumed that the man had been escorted from the building".
Take for granted that something exists or is the case.
- The user above said that NFOOTBALL notability was satisfied but it was only presumed. This means that it's taken for granted, not that its some kind of reason to doubt.
- So the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL clearly state that notability is presumed.... Meaning:
- If the subject played in a full professional league he is presumed(taken for granted) that the subject is notable even in the absence of GNG. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Dude. The best thing you can do right now, for this article, for yourself, for your future as an editor of Wikipedia, is to not say another word. Everything you want to say you have said. A hundred times. We have heard you. Saying it louder or more often is not going to benefit this article. You have been accusatory, defensive, and suspicious since the moment you arrived in this discussion. Honestly, I can't even hear you anymore. All I hear is a painful repetitive noise. This is not a playground, and we are not children. I am just so tired of even knowing that you wrote anything new here. You are done. Trust me. Whether the article is kept or deleted, you are so very, very done contributing to this discussion. I say that as advice: I have no power to enforce a cease and desist order. If I did, well... No matter. Please: you are done. I invite you to leave this conversation not because you do not have a stake in its outcome, but because you have been deeply uncivil, and your continued contributions are only reiterations of things you have already said, with a pointed finger and a cracking voice and my ears hurt so much I think they are bleeding now. Please, oh zen master. Please stop the insanity. We've heard you. You don't hear back much. KDS4444 Talk 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- KDS4444 I have nothing against you but you can't even get your facts straight and you were the one who started this Afd in the first place. People are lying here and so obviously that it's funny. A certain admin tryed to trick me and everyone else about an hour ago into believing that GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL when it clearly doesn't. If you believe that then you are flat out wrong too. I don't care if you don't like it or whatever. This is not about you. This is about the facts and the rules of Wikipedia. Of course you want me to leave because I just found someone out. I have not been uncivil. I respect everyone's right to disagree. I even apologized to a certain someone and then he lied to me flat out. I will not stand by why abuse of power goes on, its wrong and you seem to support it or at least ignore it. And who cares if you can't read my comments, your comments from the start, where you misread things, called Swedish German, so on and so on have been slammed into the trash can long ago by a few editors, so don't think that everyone wants to hear you either. I respect your right to disagree, but please show me the same respect that you want and also show some repsect for my subject by not using diminuative words to describe him and his career. Fussballspieler11 ( talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Back at
ANI.
Giant
Snowman
22:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Section Break Two: The Return
Fussballspieler11 has been blocked by Admin Bwilkins for the duration of this AFD. I, for one, am going to have a cup of tea and take a deep breath now. I'm still not convinced that Reference 1 is sufficient to show notability, especially if it is the only such reference (the others being unsuitable, as I noted). But if that site is a reliable source, we can leave it. If there were other questions or concerns that I'm missing in the above discussion, please bring'em up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can almost hear myself think again. It's rather nice. And tea helps, too. And breathing. Ahhhhh. Now then: despite the accusations of dishonesty and deception of which I have been accused (oh, what will the tabloids say tomorrow??), I really have just completed a second as-super-thorough-as-I-know-how search on futebolinterior.com.br looking for information about the web site to get SOME sense of its status as a reliable source, and while I do not speak Portuguese (or German, or Swedish, or Norwegian, or even Finish!) I can say with some confidence that what I keep finding again and again is't helpful. It shows up a billion times on a google search of the term, but half a billion of these results are, as I have said, statements of its monetary value and number of visitors. I just can't find anything about editorial oversight (supervisão editorial) or an editorial board (conselho editorial... Hmmmm.... Maybe I do speak português!) and I do not think that anyone in any amount of time is going to identify the human author of citation #1. If they do, I will eat my hat. And I have a really nice hat that I so don't want to eat right now! KDS4444 Talk 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior
http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). It's very much like professional sports websites who don't give credits of news to a particular author. But, if you check their blog, they have authors and very experienced ones. I hope I made the things clear here!
Usmanwardag (
talk)
05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sites I'm familiar with - few though they may be - credit their writers, and that's generally a fact that bolsters a site's reliability. Perhaps, as you say, it is a cultural thing. But I can't show who wrote the source at issue here, and that caused me to question its provenance. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior
http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). It's very much like professional sports websites who don't give credits of news to a particular author. But, if you check their blog, they have authors and very experienced ones. I hope I made the things clear here!
Usmanwardag (
talk)
05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- @ Ultraexactzz: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper Does that article have any author? No. Why? Because it's simply news. In blogs, they (Futebol Interior) do give credits to their authors and they have editorial staff of their own. Usmanwardag ( talk) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. On several points. First, the sources in the article are deeply flawed, per the nominator and others. Second, the statement at
WP:NFOOTBALL says anyone who appeared in a fully professional league is generally considered notable. In short, it's not guaranteed. And given how big soccer is in Brazil and South America, if this person really did play in Brazil's top division, finding sources shouldn't be this tough. Bluntly, this person fails
WP:GNG, and that for me puts him on the wrong side of "generally". Third, someone noted above that this player does not appear on any transfer list. Almost immediately, a new user comes up with a site that is user generated that shows one transfer - between small time local teams in San Diego, but nothing that indicates the article subject played any of the top teams claimed. Seriously, the article claims this guy played in some pretty big leagues, but SPAs in this AFD are trying to pin notability on low-level PDL appearances? Obvious red
flagcard. Fourth, it is claimed this person took part in training camp for the American World Cup team in 1994. Again, if true, reliable sources should have been easily obtained. Fifth, it is fishy that stories that do mention Older tend to be user-submitted. Example: [21]. Sixth, we have a professional soccer player who is also a physician who also runs a Film Festival of indeterminate importance who is also an actor (who was "featured" in some pretty big movies, yet has no IMDB profile [yet]). I'm left wondering if we will see stories tomorrow about how he is also a former astronaut who became a member of Seal Team Six. All in all, this just looks to me like a whole lot of fiction and puffery. And based on the first reply on this thread, may have been ongoing for some time. Reso lute 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - there is a long standing consensus that individuals who might pass WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively fail WP:GNG will often be considered to not meet inclusion criteria and there are a string of recent examples of AFDs that have overwhelmingly concluded as much. Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a dead horse so comprehensively flogged. Stalwart 111 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Paid-editing-prompted drama.
|
|---|
Additional Comment: KDS4444 linked to a copyrighted and non-soccer picture, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state this is against the policy of Wikipedia, and then you Stalwart111 said "A facebook page exists for an obscure, non-notable football player filled with childhood photos and photos of his family members" this is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines and is also irrelevant to the discussion and not related to his soccer career, there were soccer photos marked as free copyright but KDS4444 linked to the one of them. Clearly bashing and poking fun and invading his privacy. Usmanwardag ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
My Summary to Closing Admin 1- Subject meets WP:FOOTBALL based on the fact that he was signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues. He remained with those fully professional clubs for more than a year each. If we just discuss on the basis of probability (as many people on this page are doing), it is highly probable that he would have got a chance to play in a competitive match. That said, there are a number of references that clearly provide that Older played in fully pro Brazilian clubs. I can't recall any player who was described as having played professionally by third party independent sources but nevertheless did not play a single competitive match. Finally, the fact that he was a little less famous than his colleagues and that Internet was just starting then, might have resulted in him not being listed. Please note popularity and notability are two different things and should not be mixed. 2- Subject meets WP:GNG because he has been described as a fully pro player by 3-4 independent and reliable third party news sources and those are not just passing references. I have already explained in detail that Cite #1 is valid because Futebol interior has an editorial staff of its own (Please read the discussion above). Based on these, I strongly believe that Jordan Older deserve a mention in history, and should be given one. Usmanwardag ( talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
-@ Buffbills7701: -@ Eragon.raju: -@ FergusM1970: -@ Fussballspieler11: -@ Sourov0000: Thanks! Usmanwardag ( talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|
- Delete per Resolute. My eyes are glassy reading all this. Enough is enough. Jus da fax 10:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- You still have eyes?? I clawed mine out 12 hours ago and it really hurt but it was totally worth it!!! KDS4444 Talk 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete due to the absence of independent, reliable sources and the failure of WP:GNG. This one is just not notable. WTucker ( talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Stalwart. Note: if this is kept, someone really needs to go through this article and clear up the crufty parts. Check the number of times "first", "only", and "youngest" appear in the article. Any of these claims not clearly supported by the references need to go. The portion that depends on the poll result with "more than one write-in vote" should go as well. - UnbelievableError ( talk) 04:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The claims of the youngest and first are well known to soccer fans because there have been no other americans playing in Brazil (even reserves) until this year. So Jordan Older was the first to play there by 19 years (Until Freddy Adu who just signed in Brazil). Plus, he was 20 years at that time, so he was really the youngest. Ask any soccer fan, he would know. Finally, the question here is notability, not the contents of this article. Usmanwardag ( talk) 06:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as blatant (self)promo of/by a totally and utterly non-notable person. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W talk to me 10:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, SALT this and any similar titles - if it's not a pure hoax, it's pure promo. I'm not seeing anything reliable in a Google search on this guy whatsoever. And the ones in the article have been thoroughly debunked above. Transfermarkt isn't particularly reliable either, and this is a classic example of why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see where the "hoax" stuff is coming from. We're certainly not talking about David Beckham here, but there's no real doubt that he has played professional football. Given the number of articles WP has about distinctly non-notable footballers I don't quite understand the OTT hostility to this one.--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Other crap exists, so this should be kept? No.
Taroaldo
✉
20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Besides, this guy has apparently played 12 minutes. Wow. That's nowhere near enough, as per general consensus from other lower-league players that made one uber-brief appearance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that you described consensus accurately, but it's also very much unclear whether the USL Second Division was "fully-pro" in 2003. Don't take the listing at WP:FPL as gospel for all years in question.
Jogurney (
talk)
22:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's unclear if the league was fully pro in 2003? You'll have an RS for that, of course. I mean it's not
WP:OR or anything...--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's kinda switching the evidentiary
burden of
verifiability. The claim here is that the league was fully professional and on that basis, the subject is notable. A
reliable source would be required to verify both of those claims - that it was fully professional and that he played in it. Claiming verification by default (without a source) and then demanding a reliable source to disprove that unsourced claim is the wrong way around, really.
Stalwart
111
07:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well no, it isn't. See, there's a listed source saying it's a pro league. There isn't one saying it might not have been. So the burden of proof is exactly where it should be - on those claiming it's not a pro league.--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- When is the source from? You should probably list it here. Stalwart111 is still correct about the way "burden of proof" works - the burden is on proving that it did happen, not that it didn't, so to speak. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's the
USL Pro match database, which lists Older as having played in a pro match. It even says "Pro league" and everything. It certainly seems a bit more substantial than just claiming that the league might not have been pro in 2003. Because there isn't any RS for that, is there? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FergusM1970 (
talk •
contribs) 14 July 2013 08:31 (UTC)
- The league claiming it is fully professional doesn't necessarily make it so. And I wasn't the one who made that claim; besides, 12 minutes in a professional match isn't enough as per prior consensus in several AfDs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- @FergusM1970:
No, that link does not list Older as having played in a pro match. All it says is that he was a substitute in a match, which you, as a soccer fan, ought to know. But far from all substitutes are actually used during a match. So as a reference it can only be used to prove that Older was licensed to play for San Diego Gauchos, not that he ever actually played for them. Andit does not prove that the league San Diego Gauchos played in was fully professional. Thomas.W talk to me 08:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's an own goal, my friend - it clearly states he played for 12 minutes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was an own goal. I does say that he was on the pitch for 12 minutes (I need coffee...). And judging by the thorough debunking of all of his other claims those 12 minutes on the pitch in a lower league in the US seem to have been the pinnacle of his career as a soccerplayer. Thomas.W talk to me 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that doesn't seem to be the sort of reliable source usually accepted for verification that a league is fully professional or not. It may well be that there isn't a reliable source to verify a claim one way or the other. The default, then, is that the claim being made (that it is fully professional) is what requires a source, per WP:V. But challenging it either way is probably not " original research", yeah? Stalwart 111 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like those 12 minutes of glory were not in a professional league, but in the top amateur league in the US. According to the San Diego Gauchos article they played in the USL Premier Development League, which was/is the "top-level men's amateur soccer competition in the United States", and at the Pro Development League's official website all "pro" logos are conspicuously absent. And as we all know 12 minutes in amateur soccer does not make anyone notable. I know that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references, but since the burden of evidence lies on people claiming something it's up to Jordan Older and associates to prove that the available information, that is that the San Diego Gauchos, where he earned his 12 minutes, played in the Professional Development League, which by all available information was and is an amateur league, is false. Thomas.W talk to me 09:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Gauchos got relegated to the PDL, but according to the official website of the body that administered both leagues they were in a pro league when Older had his moment of glory for them. Note that that game is listed under the pro league; the PDL has its own option in the drop-down.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's the
USL Pro match database, which lists Older as having played in a pro match. It even says "Pro league" and everything. It certainly seems a bit more substantial than just claiming that the league might not have been pro in 2003. Because there isn't any RS for that, is there? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FergusM1970 (
talk •
contribs) 14 July 2013 08:31 (UTC)
- Well no, it isn't. See, there's a listed source saying it's a pro league. There isn't one saying it might not have been. So the burden of proof is exactly where it should be - on those claiming it's not a pro league.--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's kinda switching the evidentiary
burden of
verifiability. The claim here is that the league was fully professional and on that basis, the subject is notable. A
reliable source would be required to verify both of those claims - that it was fully professional and that he played in it. Claiming verification by default (without a source) and then demanding a reliable source to disprove that unsourced claim is the wrong way around, really.
Stalwart
111
07:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's unclear if the league was fully pro in 2003? You'll have an RS for that, of course. I mean it's not
WP:OR or anything...--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Other crap exists, so this should be kept? No.
Taroaldo
✉
20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see where the "hoax" stuff is coming from. We're certainly not talking about David Beckham here, but there's no real doubt that he has played professional football. Given the number of articles WP has about distinctly non-notable footballers I don't quite understand the OTT hostility to this one.--
FergusM1970
Let's play Freckles
17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Threats since accepted as not being threats.
|
|---|
|
I'd like to call the closing admin's attention to the threats I received by the user Stalwart111 on my talk page.. If I was being offensive, someone should have told me here. I'll take it as a serious threat to stop making my point on this AfD. I wonder what's the User Stalwart's motive behind this?? Usmanwardag ( talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Rehash of various sources.
|
|---|
|
Addition to my Aforementioned Summary I'd like to add little details to the summary I added above. FuteBol Interior (which is one of the main references) is reliable because (i) The article has an author that is FuteBol Interior Agency. Just to clarify, no specific author is cited in the news related articles. This is an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper (ii) Blog of the site can be checked which proves the fact that it has an editorial staff of its own. (iii) A huge number of wikipedia entries link to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/?search=futebolinterior.com.br&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 (iv) A large number of sites ranked highly in Alexa link to this site (This is not the most convincing point but still it helps). Usmanwardag ( talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Summary (Continued from Above): All the discussions about the leagues, the minutes and poking fun and bashing this poor man's reputation are not relevant, each league has its own Wikipedia page with all the needed information (If closing admin has the doubts, he can consult those pages). At this point I would just like to reiterate the main points: 1) Futebol Interior (a respected source) did a front page feature on Jordan Older that said he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil, it also said that he played for teams in Europe and was called up to the USA National Team training camp, this is enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... 2) PV News (another respected source) said he played professional soccer in Europe and Brazil, this is enough to add support to the claims 3) the USL Pro Leauge official stats said he played minutes in a FIFA sanctioned fully professional league, this proves WP:NFOOTBALL 4) official blogs from Sao Paulo FC which are edited and are usable sources acording to wikipedia guides say that he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil 5) offical pro team blogs from Sweden say this too... this is too much information to ignore and to doubt. Usmanwardag ( talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Additional Note: Older's built up enough contacts around the world in professional football that he's recently become a professional football/soccer agent and already sent a young American lad to play professionally in the German Bundesliga, according to the PV News (a fully edited print and online newspaper, the author of this article is Travis Perkins.) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html Sounds like he did the kid a favor by sending him to play professionally in Germany. Usmanwardag ( talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, whatever. You seem to be in a loop or something because it's about the third time in as many minutes that you post the same stuff. We're not impressed, and it does not establish any notability, so find something else to do.
Thomas.W
talk to me
21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
|
- Delete I just don't think it should be this difficult to establish notability for a footballer and it is reading this. On the vast majority of footballer articles they have played and are clearly referenced as playing, for notable teams. This article contains smoke screens such as "various professional teams in Europe and the United States". If a writer is clearly trying to show notability these notable clubs would detailed and referenced as would his games played. Aside some low level appearances, they are not.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- What about the fact that he was a
child "whiz kid" who started programming computers at the age of 10, or that he
writes top secret software for Boeing or that he is a
former scientist who speaks
five languages? What about all that??
KDS4444
Talk
11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm sure
User:Usmanwardag will start posting about that too soon. As you see a few steps up he seems to have realised that the wild, and totally unsubstantiated, claims about a soccer/football career extraordinaire have been thoroughly debunked since he started to post about the Ventura film festival ("the largest film festival in Ventura county"), and Older helping kids start a soccer/football career in Germany, instead of repeating the tall tales about the soccer/football career like a parrot, as he has earlier done (filling in for his hastily departed friend
Fussballspieler11). So I'm sure the programming career and the secret software for Boeing is next on his list.
Thomas.W
talk to me
11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not everyone is willing to spend an hour on going through the wall of text above, so as an example of the false/exaggerated claims in the article, and Older's CV, I've provided links and machine translations (courtesy of translate.google.com) that thoroughly debunk his claims about having played for Ljungskile SK in the Swedish first division (in fact Ljungskile didn't even play in the Swedish first division in 2005, when Older visited them, as can be seen in that article here on en-WP, so that in itself is a false claim). The first link (dated 22 June 2005) is the one provided in the article as a reference for having played in Sweden. But as you can see in the translated version all it says is that Older would spend a week with them so that they could see if he was good enough (which is common practice in the soccer world), mentioned in passing at the end of the article under the heading "Anything else of interest?". While the second link (dated 1 July 2005), also on the Ljungskile web site, was found by me. And as you can see in the translated version it says "He was not good enough. (If) we recruit someone, he must be better than what we have and that he was not". So Older's claims about having played professional soccer/football in the first division in Sweden turned out to be nothing more than having spent a few days practicing with a lower division amateur/semi-pro team, and then being turned down because he wasn't good enough. And the references for having had a career in Brazil are of about the same quality as that, with no support whatsoever for the claims of having played (that is having gotten actual playtime, which is what counts) in the Brazilian first division. Thomas.W talk to me 14:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm sure
User:Usmanwardag will start posting about that too soon. As you see a few steps up he seems to have realised that the wild, and totally unsubstantiated, claims about a soccer/football career extraordinaire have been thoroughly debunked since he started to post about the Ventura film festival ("the largest film festival in Ventura county"), and Older helping kids start a soccer/football career in Germany, instead of repeating the tall tales about the soccer/football career like a parrot, as he has earlier done (filling in for his hastily departed friend
Fussballspieler11). So I'm sure the programming career and the secret software for Boeing is next on his list.
Thomas.W
talk to me
11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- What about the fact that he was a
child "whiz kid" who started programming computers at the age of 10, or that he
writes top secret software for Boeing or that he is a
former scientist who speaks
five languages? What about all that??
KDS4444
Talk
11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment for closing admin This Freelancer link should shed some light on what is going on in this AFD. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Should this be brought up at WP:COIN or WP:ANI? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Editing conflict)Well, well, well, a gun for hire. Can't say I'm surprised, though. But he's ruining his own credibility by doing it, which is a pity, because noone is going to take him seriously after this. Thomas.W talk to me 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Further paid editing commentary.
|
|---|
|
Section Break Three: Post paid-editing drama
- Delete Non-notable footballer, fails GNG. Ish dar ian 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing that hasn't already been done to death.
|
|---|
Comment for closing admin: The original Afd nominator, KDS4444 herself, has stated that she has seen proof of the claims made in additional references/articles, she's even copied and linked them here for everyone to see. This is a perfectly good reason to keep the article. Usmanwardag ( talk) 09:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
- Delete and WP:SALT. Enough of these shenanigans; are you getting paid by the word, or for the result? Kilopi ( talk) 08:20, 16 July 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.
- 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 no consensus. People disagree about whether the sourcing of this Swabian word is sufficient for inclusion. Sandstein 06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Muggeseggele
- Muggeseggele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no establishment of Notability and is basically a dictionary article.
See WP:NAD ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. As I've discussed at the article's talk page, most of the content is dictionary stuff (e.g. etymology, English counterparts). The claims to notability are that 1) a famous businessperson mentioned it as an example of the Swabian dialect, and 2) it's taught in classes. I do not believe either of these claims establishes notability for a word or expression. Note: I also made some suggestions at the article talk page about places this content could be merged to.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Since I posted this original comment, the article has been updated, and basically two new claims to notability have added: 3) some sports teams use this word as their name, and 4) readers in a newspaper poll liked this word. Regarding (3), this of course has no bearing on notability: a word is a word, and who uses it or how often they use it has no bearing on notability; the only thing that has bearing on notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. (For instance, if there were substantial controversy or discussion about a sports teams' having used a certain word as its name, then it might be notable, although it might also be more appropriate to be part of the sports team's article or merged to an article about the controversy, see e.g. Cleveland Indians#Nickname and logo controversy and Washington Redskins#American Indian mascot controversy.) Regarding (4), this one is more open to interpretation I guess, but in my opinion as an editor I do not think reader polls are evidence of notability. A reader poll (regardless of how "large" the newspaper is-- asides about how large a newspaper is don't even belong in an article, it's just there to try to drum up notability) can show that lots of people know a word or lots of people like a word, but they don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, and as I have said above, the fact that a lot of people know or use or like or dislike a word does not make it notable. Significant coverage in sources (not just polls) would do that, although I can't find that kind of coverage in the sources provided; for instance, the source cited (currently in the lede) for "Muggeseggele has an iconic character and is one of the most preferred Swabian idioms" appears to be just an interview with one person, who mentions the word once as a word that he likes, defines it (saying he thinks it sounds nice) and says little more about it. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is truely written in the style of an encyclopedia and does not fit into a dictionary at all. The closest English term is "gnat's cock" or a "gnat's dick". Although it is possible to measure the diameter of this organ of a gnat, nobody would assume that this term is used as a precise dimension such as a millimetre. However, some Suebians believe, that a previously vague unit equals now the average length of 0.22 millimetres. If one follows your request for deletion, you would need to delete also ell and Foot (unit). Could it be that the slightly embarrasing function of this body part is the real reason for requesting its deletion? Please keep this article! -- NearEMPTiness ( talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The article sghould be read before coming up with claims like "no notability established". To the contrary, various (sourced) information about its notability is being provided
- Iconic character, stated e.g. by Wolfgang Wulz as President of Verein Schwäbische Mundart (Association of the Swabian Tongue)
- One of the most preferred Swabian idioms.
- It has been dubbed as the smallest Swabian measurement unit.
- One of the very rare instances of sexually themed abusive words in the German language
- Prominent example of peculiar admirable Swabian Onomatopoeia.
- Use to signify a Swabian cultural influence on others
- The term is being used as example for must-know Swabian vocabulary in courses of Swabian as a foreign language in Tübingen.
I understand this as a sort of WP:POINT maneuvre to torpedo a DYK nomination, whch was already on the waiting list. Serten ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- NearEMPTiness and Serten: please do not keep trying to discredit editors who disagree with you by making unfounded speculations about their motives. We have already discussed at length the reasons behind my concerns, and it is already abundantly clear that you think the claims establish notability and I do not. There is no reason for you to suggest that any editors are trying to delete this article because it's about penises or because of anything having to do with DYK (indeed, the status of an article on DYK has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on an AfD debate; "it's notable because it's been nominated for DYK" is not at all a valid argument against deletion). You have no evidence to suggest that and it is completely unrelated to the discussion; please stay on topic and address the arguments, rather than the editors. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We had a merge discussion first and now its about deletion, please understand that this lacks consistency and I uphold the notion aboit WP:point. Furthermore you have not substantiated your claims, your statements a) b) purporte a lack of sourcing which is easily ruled out by reading the article.
Serten (
talk) 06:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) PS.: BTW - have a look on the German Wikipedia Main page
de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Schon_gewusst, today and tomorrow Muggeseggele is being featured there.
Serten (
talk)
07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never said anything about lack of sources. Also, the status of an article on another language Wikipedia is not relevant here; different Wikipedias have different content guidelines. Finally, the person who nominated this for deletion is a different editor than I (the person who started the merge discussion) am; of course different people sometimes have different opinions, and it's quite inappropriate to you to suggest that either of us has bad or POINTy motives just because we don't hold the same opinions. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We had a merge discussion first and now its about deletion, please understand that this lacks consistency and I uphold the notion aboit WP:point. Furthermore you have not substantiated your claims, your statements a) b) purporte a lack of sourcing which is easily ruled out by reading the article.
Serten (
talk) 06:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) PS.: BTW - have a look on the German Wikipedia Main page
de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Schon_gewusst, today and tomorrow Muggeseggele is being featured there.
Serten (
talk)
07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Lets discuss the claims, which imho are substantiated by various sources. My count is at least 7 claims of notability, yours is about 2 and youre doubting them as well. How to explain the difference? Serten ( talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's do that.
- This appears to be a dictionary like entry in a self published e-book. Hardly a WP:RS and does not establish notability.
- The only thing in this article that refers to the word in question is a statement that this is one of the person being interviewed's favorite words. Certainly is not the subject of the article (which is what WP:N requires... not simply that the subject is mentioned within an article)
- This one again is simply a mention of the word in the article. It is simply a funny way to introduce the article, which is actually about a seminar and was the answer to a question at the seminar. Does not establish notability.
- This reference only has the word once in the entire book, and I could not find a translation. I have no way to establish notability from this source, but I wouldn't rest a case on this source one way or another.
- See previous note.
- This reference is completely irrelevant and needs to be removed.
- Again, basically just a definition...
- See number 3, same reference
- Again, the article is not about the subject of the Wikipedia entry, just a passing reference to a similar English term.
- See 12... not about the subject, the English equivalent phrase is simply used, not discussed.
- So it appears that you don't actually have any sources that actually establish notability... since none of the sources in the article qualify as such. This word may be notable for German Wikipedia, but it is not notable for English Wikipedia. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OK
- Never heard of Langenscheidt? Calling a Langenscheidt dictionary a "self published e-book" is ridiculous.
- Wulz is head of the association for the swabian dialect, clear indication of iconic status
- The report about the seminar puts muggaseggele on the titel and indicates iconic status in the text
- Try as well Muckenseckel, there are different ways to write it, gauger elaborates on it as well, long entry, clear indication of notability in a scholarly book
- see above
- I doubt so, gauger is clear about the topic and challenges Dundes Thesis
- see above
- Dostert - clearly indication of use and value and iconic status
- petershagen - clear indication of use value and measurement by expert
- Gnats cock is refered to as a sort of "see also" entry, completely appropriate and adding value
Strong Keep Serten ( talk) 15:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that resources about language happen to use a word as an example of dialect differences is not an indicator of notability. Look at English for comparison; in the United States there is regional variation in whether people call this "soda" or "pop", and there are literally hundreds of articles and websites devoted entirely to this topic (see e.g. http://www.popvssoda.com/, [29], [30], [31]), but that does not necessarily mean any of these words are notable (and indeed, none of them have Wikipedia articles). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The difference between Muggeseggele and Muckenseckel in german is similar to the one between Potatoe and Potato, so pop/soda does not apply. There are difference between sources like Gauger, langenscheidt and Wurz and pop/soda bloggers. Gauger is a serious scholar and the book in question is noteable
[32], Langenscheidt an international active publishing house doing encyclopedic books and Wulz the head of the Swabian dialect association
[33]. Pop/soda bloggers are just pop/soda bloggers.
Serten (
talk)
18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- While the books may be notable... the word muggeseggele is not the SUBJECT of the books, they are only mentioned in passing as a single example of the swabian dialect. This would be akin to saying that "sneeker" is a notable word because some language professor mentions that it is only in New England that it is used... ReformedArsenal ( talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The difference between Muggeseggele and Muckenseckel in german is similar to the one between Potatoe and Potato, so pop/soda does not apply. There are difference between sources like Gauger, langenscheidt and Wurz and pop/soda bloggers. Gauger is a serious scholar and the book in question is noteable
[32], Langenscheidt an international active publishing house doing encyclopedic books and Wulz the head of the Swabian dialect association
[33]. Pop/soda bloggers are just pop/soda bloggers.
Serten (
talk)
18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you thnk that? Gauger wrote various pages in his book about the linguistics of the word, thats not a dictionary. If you ask for a book / monography just about muggaseggele, sorry thats a Bridge to far. If you like to see a suitable example, take the entry about How (greeting), best the de:Howgh. Noteable, for sure. Muggaseggele is either used as a measurement unit and to adresse the member of a male fly. Serten ( talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Enjoys a long achieved cult status. See references. -- MisterGugaruz ( talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. A word that may have an iconic status in German doesn't necessarily make the grade in English. The article is about a
German word, sourced almost entirely in German. The three or so English citations do "bugger all" in defining or documenting the word's status in English usage – in fact they merely point to the use of "gnat's crotch"
without drawing any specific reference to the German term.
Pardon my French ;-), but we quite rightly don't see entries to "connard" or "pédé" for that same reason despite the fact these are equally "iconic".
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa?
03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- You refer to Pédé, thats related to enWP Faggot. I guess the discussion is more about Gnats cock than about Muggeseggele and the article doesnt speak white enough for some guys. Serten ( talk) 06:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The term that comes from the Alemannic dialect, enjoying long time in the German cult status and is standard knowledge for anyone who is interested in Swabia and its inhabitants and its culture. See references. --
Jocian (
talk)
08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that a word is "common knowledge" does not in of itself make that word notable (see
WP:IKNOWIT and
WP:Subjective importance).
The editors arguing 'keep' also keep making reference to the "iconic" or "cult" status of the word, which as far as I can tell is basically a personal, subjective judgment. The source provided in the article doesn't actually make this claim; as far as I can tell from Google Translate, it's an interview with one individual saying that he likes that word. Other sources that have been mentioned include those just listing the word as a well-known example a word in this dialect; that is hardly unusual or impressive for language materials (any resources about any given dialect will mention some key examples of words from that dialect). Sources like these are not sufficient to establish "iconic" status of a word--and even if they were, I am not sure that something as vague as "iconic" status of a word directly translates into notability anyway. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that a word is "common knowledge" does not in of itself make that word notable (see
WP:IKNOWIT and
WP:Subjective importance).
- We had this article in much smaller and less sourced version on the German art for deletion page and then at the german Did you know. Now we have to tell a blind guy about the colour of milk - if you dont get the meaning - godness, google translate - why dont you ask somebody who knows about stuff?
Serten (
talk)
18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have already explained to you that the presence or absence of the article on another Wikipedia has no bearing on its notability here. Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria (for example, editors on French Wikipedia chose to include a dictionary of Han characters on their Wikipedia, something which would never happen on en-wiki).
- As for Google Translate--yes, I'm not a speaker of German, so I use what resources I have available to try and gauge what is in the references, while being aware of the potential limitations of automatic translation. Many Wikipedia editors do this. Are you suggesting that editors who don't speak German do not have the right to participate in this discussion?
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm think I would have to leave then.
Serten (
talk)
19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I accidentally left off the word "don't" in my message, and have corrected it. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm think I would have to leave then.
Serten (
talk)
19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- We had this article in much smaller and less sourced version on the German art for deletion page and then at the german Did you know. Now we have to tell a blind guy about the colour of milk - if you dont get the meaning - godness, google translate - why dont you ask somebody who knows about stuff?
Serten (
talk)
18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I provided some further links to underline the claim of "iconic use". I still dont get the point why notability is still doubted. Serten ( talk) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, the content you added is extremely trivial. A sport team using this word as their name, or a person using this word in a sentence, is far from establishing notability. These are examples of the word being used, not examples of the word being discussed in reliable sources--you can read about the use-mention distinction to understand this difference. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - does not seem to be a notable usage, certainly not in English, nor other than trivial. While this is not a pure hoax, there is a student-joke quality to this material that basically just brings the project into disrepute. There is no censorship here, just a preference for worthwhile material. The article is basically about a word, so WP:NOTDICT may well apply also. The comparisons with possible English counterparts suggest WP:OR. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep.Various notions of notability presented. No notable usage in English is a sort of speak white argument and I stronly deny that being valid. It might have a sort of student joke character like Jakob Maria Mierscheid which is noteable and finds its way into fandom and newspapers. And yes, a sports team (and in case of ultimate, its the one that hosted a world championship) using the gunners or the Muggenseggele as name is clearly an indication of notability. Serten ( talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)- You have already !voted above; to help keep things organized for the admin who will be reading this discussion, please indent this comment and remove the bolded "keep". Thank you, rʨanaɢ ( talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's a duplicate !vote. And that isn't what Wikipedia calls evidence of notability, no.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasnt aware that the votes of the previous list are counted here again. Serten ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's a duplicate !vote. And that isn't what Wikipedia calls evidence of notability, no.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Nonnotable word. Examples of usage or brief mention do not establish notability. Edison ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gaugers elaborate address of the phraseology and etymology of Mucken seckel/ Muggeseggele / and Seggel is not to be called an "entry" or brief notion. As well are references to the word and in the way they are annotated to Wulz and Lindner in major newspaper clear indications of notability and NOT mentioning. Serten ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep References show significance. --
Gschupfta Ferdl (
talk)
18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate on how they show significance? As you can see from the discussion above, clearly some editors think the references establish notability and some don't. So just saying it's notable (when that point is the whole crux of the disagreement) without giving any reason why, is not terribly helpful. See
WP:JNN.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
23:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have the impression that anybody with ability to read German has a quick look on the sources, nods, grins and is completely in line with the notability, while it seems to be a problem for non natives. I have done lists, explained the high scholarly standing of Gauger, the role of Wurz and Lindner - completely lost. It is a case of german humour, but seems not to work with limeys at all. Big sigh.
Serten (
talk)
00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. Wikipedia has an explicit policy (
WP:NPA) saying "comment on content, not on contributors".
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- To explain my point, have a look at
=taxon_concept&commit=Filter Hans-Peter Tschorsnigs EOL Entry], the guy who measured the length of the Muggenseggele is a quite serious scholar - the extremly
deadpan humour of the (of cause noteable) fact which goes in the same direction as
Stone louse seems to be lost in translation.
Serten (
talk)
05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is now clearly seen and admitted to be a silly piece of attempted humour. The only appropriate outcome of AfD is deletion.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:JNN for this comment, not terribly helpful, like most of the comments of the deletion supporters. A lot of emotions and prejudice. -- Papa Kern ( talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is now clearly seen and admitted to be a silly piece of attempted humour. The only appropriate outcome of AfD is deletion.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- To explain my point, have a look at
=taxon_concept&commit=Filter Hans-Peter Tschorsnigs EOL Entry], the guy who measured the length of the Muggenseggele is a quite serious scholar - the extremly
deadpan humour of the (of cause noteable) fact which goes in the same direction as
Stone louse seems to be lost in translation.
Serten (
talk)
05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. Wikipedia has an explicit policy (
WP:NPA) saying "comment on content, not on contributors".
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have the impression that anybody with ability to read German has a quick look on the sources, nods, grins and is completely in line with the notability, while it seems to be a problem for non natives. I have done lists, explained the high scholarly standing of Gauger, the role of Wurz and Lindner - completely lost. It is a case of german humour, but seems not to work with limeys at all. Big sigh.
Serten (
talk)
00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate on how they show significance? As you can see from the discussion above, clearly some editors think the references establish notability and some don't. So just saying it's notable (when that point is the whole crux of the disagreement) without giving any reason why, is not terribly helpful. See
WP:JNN.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
23:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please recall the Wikipedia policy of
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Comments of that kind are unacceptable here at AfD or anywhere else. However, my comment was made quietly and dispassionately, and on reflection I stand by it.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are you talking about your comments? -- Papa Kern ( talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please recall the Wikipedia policy of
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Comments of that kind are unacceptable here at AfD or anywhere else. However, my comment was made quietly and dispassionately, and on reflection I stand by it.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- +Agreed. It seems some guys miss the difference between an WP hoax and a RL hoax. This is a German RL hoax AND a real item and has been measured being 0,22 mm long by an scholarly expert. Silly piece of attempted humour. Please be reminded that german hunour exists and comes in small portions. here is one ;)
Serten (
talk)
17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary of humour, German or any other kind.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some people may have a sort of Gore Effect or Dementor cloud around them, making humour non-existant around their perimeter. However I found Humour exists, German humour seems to be a valid entry, and Muggeseggele is a classical example of a xxxx in trousers deadpan twinkle of the elsewhere mercilessly efficient humourless German engineer in the best traditions of Mierscheid law. Stop kidding please, zis is serious business. Serten ( talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary of humour, German or any other kind.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects the knowledge of actually existing phenomena − and the lemma informed about not only a sense of humor expressed in a German region, but it illustrates the production and reception history of a typical German phenomenon. The dialect expression as described in the lemma appears trivial at first glance, but he shows how humor in German manifested: the vernacular, which is always interested in a sexually connoted subject, teams up here with a fact-based science, on typical German kind of like "stubborn thoroughness", "perfect accuracy" and "dry humor that plays with complex hints".
The phenomenon described in the article is a little key to understanding how "tick" the Germans. More can not do an encyclopedia when they explained a phenomenon in a different language culture and society as here. -- Jocian ( talk) 01:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The key question seems to be: Is Muggeseggele relevant for speakers of the English language?
- Did Obama and Merkel diskuss Muggeseggele during any of their meetings. No But maybe in the very, very, very secret talks? Lets ask the NSA!
- Was Muggeseggele the last word Hitler said, before he shot himself? No. Actually he did say:" Verdommt! Verdommt! Wie fonktionniert döse domme Pis... "
- Is there any English newspaper or book which refers to Muggeseggele? Very probably not.
- Is it true that Muggeseggele is a common householdword in Germany? "Welches Wort?" "Muggeseggele!" "Hab' ich noch nie gehört...was ist das?" No, it is not.
- Can you understand German linguistic humor without knowing Muggeseggele? Yes. Berufsverbot or Weltschmerz are much better examples and study objects.
- Without knowing Muggeseggele, can you find access and understand the works of Kafka? Definitively Yes. But still very depressing. Try reading something from T. Pratchett..!
- I would use similar tests of relevance for an expression used by Southerners for a defined part in catfish intestine anatomy which is used for VERY funny purposes on saturday nights after dinner (...) and which is supposed to enter the German language Wikipedia.
- Muggeseggele is großartig (great) for the alemannic WP; it is grenzwertig (borderline) for the German language WP; and it is absolutely irrelevant for the Spanish, Portugese, French, Japanese and Polish WP. Oh ja, auch für die Englischsprachige... delete Peace GEEZER
nil nisi bene
17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Grey Geezer: While I of course agree with you that the article should be deleted, I'm not sure your rationale is quite valid. The general notability guideline on English Wikipedia is not language-specific--that is to say, if something meets the notability guideline in one part of the world or one group of speakers, then that is enough to meet the guideline for English Wikipedia. (See the second paragraph of WP:UNKNOWNHERE.) There aren't things that en-wiki would consider notable for de-wiki (or any other Wikipedia) but not en-wiki. (That being said, there can be differences across Wikipedias because some of them have different notability criteria; but that's a different issue; from the perspective of en-wiki, something notable in one language is notable in any language).
- That being said, I still believe the article still does not meet the notability criterion--for the other reasons that are outlined above. I just wanted to clarify the criterion for you here and see whether or not you want to reconsider your !vote.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I stay with my point. On top of it - comparing the other units in this category - the category "Customary units of measurement" seems inappropriate/wishful thinking. It means "a wee bit" which you find in Wiktionary. GEEZER nil nisi bene 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- How difficult is the way but to knowledge. This all seekers deserve a whole Muggeseggele more than a Quantum of Solace. That's the difference − a Muggeseggele. -- Jocian ( talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Rjanag, that geezers point misses completely the conditions for notability in any Wikipedia. Take
zh:阿尔伯特广场 (德累斯顿) in the chinese WP, an article about a pittoresque street crossing in
Dresden. There is no rule that confines notability to the language of the sources provided nor wether a certain fact is present in a nation or culture, we wont erase
Women's rights in arabic for such reasons neither. Geezer is in contrary to me no (German) "Southerner". I see the useability of Muggeseggele in presenting swabian humour to an audience, that might (dream to) drive cars, that is actually being treated with medical devices, that wears textiles seamed by machinery which all is being produced in a region that takes a Muggeseggele as a unit for diligence.
Serten (
talk)
04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is a completely different kind of situation though. This is specifically about a word in a specific language, not a universal concept like Women's Rights, or a geographic location that exists in the world. A slang word in a minor German dialect is not anymore notable in English than the slang usage of the word "Y'all" or "Aint" would be on German wikipedia. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Rjanag, that geezers point misses completely the conditions for notability in any Wikipedia. Take
zh:阿尔伯特广场 (德累斯顿) in the chinese WP, an article about a pittoresque street crossing in
Dresden. There is no rule that confines notability to the language of the sources provided nor wether a certain fact is present in a nation or culture, we wont erase
Women's rights in arabic for such reasons neither. Geezer is in contrary to me no (German) "Southerner". I see the useability of Muggeseggele in presenting swabian humour to an audience, that might (dream to) drive cars, that is actually being treated with medical devices, that wears textiles seamed by machinery which all is being produced in a region that takes a Muggeseggele as a unit for diligence.
Serten (
talk)
04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful, it is NOT a slang or four letter wordword, and ist has a concept behind, I assume gnats dick lacks that. Muggeseggele can be used towards children, e.g. in the website
Ein Fall für B.A.R.Z. ist being explained like that. Mostly MS is being used as a measurement unit, (move the picture a MS to the left or technically "the cabling is a MS too close to the heater according EN 60335-2-27" or even we still have a MS of time). Futhermore Baden Württemberg / the region where u find the expression as a state would have 2 Million people more than than the Kingdom of
Sweden, so far for minor.
Serten (
talk)
19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the number of speakers who use a given word has no bearing on notability. English also has many comparable words used by even more people (e.g. "the cabling is a mite too close"), and none of them are notable. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful, it is NOT a slang or four letter wordword, and ist has a concept behind, I assume gnats dick lacks that. Muggeseggele can be used towards children, e.g. in the website
Ein Fall für B.A.R.Z. ist being explained like that. Mostly MS is being used as a measurement unit, (move the picture a MS to the left or technically "the cabling is a MS too close to the heater according EN 60335-2-27" or even we still have a MS of time). Futhermore Baden Württemberg / the region where u find the expression as a state would have 2 Million people more than than the Kingdom of
Sweden, so far for minor.
Serten (
talk)
19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm tell me one that has been elected being the most beautiful word in a regional dialect? 2009 that happend to Muggeseggele after a survey of readers of Stuttgarter Nachrichten, thats a serious daily newspaper with a circulation of 200.000,
[34].
Serten (
talk)
22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- That makes it incredibly notable IN THAT REGION and THAT LANGUAGE. However, it still is not notable at all in English. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 10:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm tell me one that has been elected being the most beautiful word in a regional dialect? 2009 that happend to Muggeseggele after a survey of readers of Stuttgarter Nachrichten, thats a serious daily newspaper with a circulation of 200.000,
[34].
Serten (
talk)
22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Would you go so far to ask for the deletion of Swabian German ? Which regulation about region and language allows you to stop Muggeseggele being mentioned there and having its own article as well in the enWP? Serten ( talk) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not the same thing. An article about a language itself is different than an article about a word within a language. As far as regulations about region and language, it's common sense. We don't have articles about every peculiar word or idiom in every language, because it isn't notable in THIS language. Nor does the German Wiki have articles about peculiar words or idioms in English, because it is not notable in German contexts.
ReformedArsenal (
talk)
12:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- You been ever to the german WP? de:On Bullshit de:Gore-Effekt, de:Atari Democrat, de:Howgh ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let's look at those, shall we?
- de:On Bullshit - This isn't about the word Bullshit, it is about a book written about the term Bullshit. Not analogous.
- de:Gore-Effekt - This is a term that has been used on the floor of the UN, so it has international usage. Not analogous.
- de:Atari Democrat - This is the name of a political movement, so it has international bearing (since political movements often have international visibility and impact). Similar I would think to "Tea Party" in terms of it's broad necessity. Not analogous.
- de:Howgh - This term is used in German song lyrics and therefore it is reasonable to have it represented on the German Wiki. If you survey 100 Americans, 99 of them will have no idea what the word means, and will likely think it is somehow related to Harry Potter ( Muggle). Not analogous. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yep.
- I think the most important difference is the use/mention issue. On BS is about a very american concept - however it found its way in the deWP.
- The article isn't on the concept, or the use of the word. It is about a book. Not at all the same thing.
- Here we talk about usage. "At our Indian premises, everybody knows what a muggaseggele is" by a major german industrialist is not the UN but international as well
- "by a major german industrialist" - It might be notable on the India Wiki then... but even that would be a stretch.
- Atari Democrat compare
de:Blue Dog Coalition, rather local, still notable;) Gauche caviar /
de:Toskana-Fraktion would be more international
- Again... about a political movement. The movement has representatives from all over the US, hardly local.
-
de:Howgh
de:Indianerbild im deutschen Sprachraum (How germans identify with American Indians) would be worth to translate. I would love to have a source on your survey and mention it in Howgh! Since the
Brothers Grimm, germans tend to be more interested in others folklore.
Serten (
talk)
07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't change anything. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 12:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep See last paragraph from Serten (Stuttgarter Nachrichten). -- Papa Kern ( talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Despite having edited the article early on, I stayed out of this because I couldn't make up my mind, and was hoping someone would turn up at least one solid reference discussing the English terms, to balance the fact the Swabian term is demonstrated in the article to be frequently discussed as an exemplar of the dialect. Looking at it again now, I still think it's very close, but the Stuttgarter Nachrichten poll article puts it over the top for me. In my opinion the article now contains enough references to reliable sources discussing it - as opposed to passing mentions of what it means, or examples of its use - to pass general notability (and to remain an article at the Swabian title and predominantly about the Swabian term). Immaterial that the corresponding English terms don't have such discussion in reliable sources; that just means the article shouldn't be moved to an English title. This version of Wikipedia is in English, but that doesn't mean it covers only English-speaking topics. Yngvadottir ( talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I have updated my !vote rationale at the top of this discussion to reflect changes made to the article since my original !vote. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Rjanag The "one person" you mentioned is the President of the Swabian dialect association. That doesnt give him scholarly authority, (however the lengthy entry in Gaugers linguistic book does), but he speaks for a larger community. A possible compromise would be to move the entry to Swabian and Aegidius and to provide a redirect from here. But I assume it has a right of its own. PS.: I found some entries on scholar and think they add notability. It seems that foreigners (germans and non germans) in Baden Württemberg normally dont adapt to the accent but use some specific swabian expressions as a cultural code to show will to integrate respectively their status as part of the local community. Muggenseggele is mentioned and used as one of those specific expressions. I understood from the discussion that I had made an error in so far in coming up with "use" instead of "notion". However this indicates notion, since Muggenseggele is not only being used as "a tiny bit" but as well to signify "I may have come from elsewhere but now I belong to this region." Serten ( talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article has now been so far expamded and contains a lot of useful and non-trivial information that it cannot be merged with another page. A deletion would not be fair according to Wikipedia's objectives and rules. -- NearEMPTiness ( talk) 08:27, 20 July 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.
- 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 redirect to Ashley Kirilow. There is no consensus to delete outright. Normal editing can now determine what, if anything, from this article's history should be merged to Ashley Kirilow, or if that article should instead be moved to this title. postdlf ( talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Change for the Cure
- Change for the Cure ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to pass notability criteria. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Should be a speedy. No credible assertion of notability. Taroaldo ✉ 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yup.
Speedydelete - there is no evidence whatsoever that this 'charity' has any notability independent of the individual concerned - this looks to me like a misguided attempt to bypass WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how BLP would come into play here. This article is about a charity. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that you read WP:BLP policy then - it applies to any material relating to a living person on Wikipedia, whether in a biography or other article, or indeed on a talk page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? Which aspect of the BLP policy is this stub violating, WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? -- Kendrick7 talk 01:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
-
- Which doesn't apply, as the subject of the article isn't a person. Surely you aren't suggesting Wikipedia can't have articles about WP:ORGs founded by still living people simply because such articles might make the people involved look bad, are you? -- Kendrick7 talk 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, a misguided attempt to get around WP:BLP policy. Fortunately, policy doesn't permit such transparent Wikilawyering - WP:BLP policy applies whether an article is about a real person, or a fictitious organisation - what matters is the content, not the title. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kendrick, the article is not about a charity. There was no charity....just a fraud. The title is misleading, and the article creator even added the charity stub. Seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as an organization set up primarily to commit fraud? Pfft (although I apologize for my utter inability to properly WP:STUBSORT). -- Kendrick7 talk 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- What organisation? There was no organisation. The fraud consisted of her telling people she had an organisation. Nothing more. There was a facebook page: big deal. How is any of this notable? Taroaldo ✉ 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wholeheartly agree it is about the content. So, again, which content policy, per my list above, are you accusing this article of violating? -- Kendrick7 talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E, as I have already said. Your 'list above' is incomplete... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Round and round we go. The proper notability guideline is WP:ORG. Obviously, the vast majority of modern day organizations are made up of living people who are otherwise non-notable. That shouldn't automatically make articles about such organizations non-encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not the slightest bit interested in your Wikilawyering bullshit - the only sources cited refer to Kirilow - any mention of the 'charity' is made in passing. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I declined the speedy--there appear to be two major reliable sources, & that makes enough of a claim of importance to pass speedy. If they are not adequate for one reason or other to meet the notability requirement, this needs to be a community decision to delete after full discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable attention seeker. It made the news because of how reprehensible the act was; nothing to do with the person or the specific act of fraud. Taroaldo ✉ 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- So the organization is both non-notable because it has sought attention, and yet notable for its reprehensible behavior?
Your second vote heredoesn't make a lot of sense, frankly. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- What second vote is that? You are beginning to make it difficult to keep assuming good faith when you start making ridiculous accusations. Taroaldo ✉ 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, I miss read your pro-speedy delete comment as a pseudo vote. Stricken. -- Kendrick7 talk 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- So the organization is both non-notable because it has sought attention, and yet notable for its reprehensible behavior?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A simple Google search for this organization and its bad behavior gets over 23 million hits on Google. [35] I know some are arguing that we should ignore WP:ORG, and that we can't have articles about poorly run organizations made up of otherwise non-notable and still living people, per WP:BLP1E. But we're an encyclopedia, and the proverbial cat is long since out of the bag. -- Kendrick7 talk 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here's the deal - I'll remove any references to Kirilow per WP:BLP1E, and you write the article about the 'organisation' based on sources that don't mention her - there must be a few amongst the 23 million that don't ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was around when WP:BLP1E became policy. Its original intent was for Wikipedia to not have articles about random internet users who, due to no fault of their own, became memes on 4chan or the like. [36] A noble if rather worthless goal thanks to that other wiki. I even think it's fine and reasonable not to create articles about one-off criminals of little notoriety. But with your interpretation, the slope has slipped quite enough for me. The policy wasn't created to protect organizations which have deliberately committed real-money fraud and are widely notable because of it. -- Kendrick7 talk 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- That was part of it The other part was to avoid detailed coverage of unrelated minor criminal incidents in the lives of people, except where the people (like political figures or well- publicized sports & entertainment figures) were such as that all aspects of their behavior were considered by the public as important, It was not meant to prevent the discussion of criminal behavior by people noted for being criminals. BLP of course does apply to articles about other things than people, as indeed it should, but among the things that it does rightly require is that when we do cover criminal behavior, we try to use a non-personal name for the article subject. Frauds can be notable, as I think this one is, and the name of the organization is a fair heading for the article that covers it. The individual responsible can be discussed also, as any other other criminal. BLP has to be used very careful to avoid becoming censorship of the unpleasant. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Have you got any evidence that 'an organisation' ever existed, other than in Kirilow's imagination? If so, please provide sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The sources suggest that it did. Please bring forth your sources that suggest that checks made out to Change for the Cure were cashed only in anyone's particular imagination. -- Kendrick7 talk 05:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read your own sources? The articles clearly make reference to her soliciting all payments in "cash and rolls of change". There were no cheques to be cashed and there was no organisation, except in her mind. There are "millions" of hits because a few stories were done by CP or TorStar and a bunch of other news outlets picked them up. Taroaldo ✉ 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep WhatI was saying above, was they we could indeed cover it under her name, but that it is an appropriate use of discretion to use some other title,. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) before a com
-
DGG, I'm really surprised you're falling for this bogus article. The Toronto Star article clearly spells out what she was doing. Look closer.
Taroaldo
✉
05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
-
DGG, I'm really surprised you're falling for this bogus article. The Toronto Star article clearly spells out what she was doing. Look closer.
- Information - A fairly large userspace draft on Ashley Kirilow was written by Geo Swan in the 2010-2012 time frame. He turned it into a redirect to List of cancer victim hoaxes (which was deleted yesterday via this AFD) before moving it to Ashley Kirilow. here is the last draft before he gutted it. Ashley Kirilow now redirects to Change for the Cure. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merge with and redirect to a restored Ashley Kirilow, restored to the last "full" version as it existed when it was a userspace draft. Then clean up and reduce the size of the restored Ashley Kirilow page and make sure it is WP:BLP-compliant. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep but expand. I think an argument can be made that the organization Ashley Kirilow set up, called "Change for the Cure" was notable, hers was not the only charity or bogus charity to use the phrase. Another organization that used it was the very successful Susan G. Komen charity, which distributed "Change for the Cure" jars for years. The article should cover all organizations that use the slogan. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- There should be a single article that deals with "Change for the Cure" and "Ashley Kirilow". I agree with DGG that the article should be at Change for the Cure; Ashley Kirilow should be merged into and redirected to it. The primary topic should be the charity fraud. Pseudonymous Rex ( talk) 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Merge with Ashley Kirilow. However, there's really no information in the article to merge apart from a couple references, so a merge here is, in effect, a delete. Marechal Ney ( talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment about where to merge if we do merge. The primary notability for both the person and the organization is the criminal behavior. Our BLP policy is unambiguous that in ordinary circumstances when there is a choice of names we do not use the personal name of the criminal for the title, so if there is any basis for an article at all it belongs under the organization name. I am rather startled by some of the comments above that I am too credulous about accept the positive material here. I very much accept the negative material, and the way to cover it is under the present name. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge with Ashley Kirilow article. I don't think this deserves status as a separate article. It was a figment of Kirilow's imagination and should remain as part of that article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge the two articles, making Ashley Kirilow re-direct to the charity. -- Soman ( talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Ashley Kirilow; this subject has neither the lasting effects nor the duration of coverage required by WP:EVENT. Mini apolis 14:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Just a quick search on Google and found nothing. The subject has only a mention in all the sources provided, and there seems to be no considerable third party coverage, except some passing mentions. Usmanwardag ( talk) 04:46, 11 July 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.
Daniel Alfredo Ojeda is a very influential personality in Miami. He serves the people. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
45.74.87.218 (
talk)
21:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)