- 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. KTC ( talk) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Makhambet Kadeshov
- Makhambet Kadeshov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 09:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as subject has played in fully professional league, Kazakhstan Premier League. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:FPL, as clearly stated in the deletion rationale, there is no consensus that Kazakhstan is a fully professional league, therefore subject fails NFOOTY.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- This circus again. First
WP:FPL is an essay on notability and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. So basically, NFOOTY demands players play in "fully" professional league but REFUSES TO LIST ANY CRITERIA of what constitutes a fully professional league. The essay FPL also completely fails in any regard with NO CRITERIA. How can you have a guideline on notability with no criteria?! I've asked how many times for any specifics of examples what I need to find, what wording, from which source, from which governing body can confirm the KPL is a "fully" professional league in a language that does not use this phrase or any equivalent? They have the very clear terms: professional, semi-professional and amateur, but oh no, these distinctions are not enough! The ONLY example I've gotten was "uhhhhh well this article here says he's the only player in the league with another job, so that means it's fully professional." So basically, for the top league of professionals who by definition don't have other jobs (and who make way more playing football than the majority of the population) my best bet is to find a reliable source that reports the existence of one lone player who has decided to, for the hell of it, go find another job? This is laughable. Your true criteria appears to be, "Is it a country I can find on a map? Do I know those players? Yup I agree fully professional because I just know it is!" And you say, "there is no consensus that Kazakhstan [SIC] is a fully professional league" - maybe because there appears to be only
ONE SINGLE reference to KPL in all of your talk archive going back 12 years? (And the one reference is a suggestion to add it and 10 other leagues!!) Is this really an acceptable standard? I am truly astonished at this level of incompetence and
systemic bias determining notability for the world's most popular sport.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 14:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you expect me to say.
WP:FPL is an essay in itself, but it is also linked to as a notability criterion in
WP:NSPORT so it is essentially a guideline and has been seen as such in countless AfDs for a number of years. The simple facts are as follows:
- enWiki operates on consensus.
- No consensus has been reached on Kazakhstan.
- This may be because no one has discussed it at length but that is irrelevant. Until consensus is reached the default position is a league is not fully professional.
- I note you have never attempted to commence any discussion around Kazakhstan, if you have sources you believe indicate full professionalism, please present them at WT:FPL. All leagues are sourced in the FPL listing so that should give you plenty of information as to what is likely to be accepted.
- Your focus on NFOOTY is also misguided. GNG is the most important criterion. I would be interested to understand how you would be able to claim that an individual who has played twice in their entire career could be notable under GNG. Where has the short career of this player been discussed in depth?
- Thanks. Fenix down ( talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you expect me to say.
WP:FPL is an essay in itself, but it is also linked to as a notability criterion in
WP:NSPORT so it is essentially a guideline and has been seen as such in countless AfDs for a number of years. The simple facts are as follows:
- This circus again. First
WP:FPL is an essay on notability and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. So basically, NFOOTY demands players play in "fully" professional league but REFUSES TO LIST ANY CRITERIA of what constitutes a fully professional league. The essay FPL also completely fails in any regard with NO CRITERIA. How can you have a guideline on notability with no criteria?! I've asked how many times for any specifics of examples what I need to find, what wording, from which source, from which governing body can confirm the KPL is a "fully" professional league in a language that does not use this phrase or any equivalent? They have the very clear terms: professional, semi-professional and amateur, but oh no, these distinctions are not enough! The ONLY example I've gotten was "uhhhhh well this article here says he's the only player in the league with another job, so that means it's fully professional." So basically, for the top league of professionals who by definition don't have other jobs (and who make way more playing football than the majority of the population) my best bet is to find a reliable source that reports the existence of one lone player who has decided to, for the hell of it, go find another job? This is laughable. Your true criteria appears to be, "Is it a country I can find on a map? Do I know those players? Yup I agree fully professional because I just know it is!" And you say, "there is no consensus that Kazakhstan [SIC] is a fully professional league" - maybe because there appears to be only
ONE SINGLE reference to KPL in all of your talk archive going back 12 years? (And the one reference is a suggestion to add it and 10 other leagues!!) Is this really an acceptable standard? I am truly astonished at this level of incompetence and
systemic bias determining notability for the world's most popular sport.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 14:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:FPL, as clearly stated in the deletion rationale, there is no consensus that Kazakhstan is a fully professional league, therefore subject fails NFOOTY.
Fenix down (
talk) 11:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - can be recreated if and when he plays in a fully pro league Spiderone 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - He has not played in a confirmed fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Totally non-notable no mark. BUT Мандичка is absolutely right about the systematic bias and stupidity of WP:FPL. Witness the double standards and hypocrisy applied to Scotland's semi-pro second tier. This encyclopedia would be a better place if the handful of imbeciles (above) who have presided over this farce logged out and never logged back in again. Carlos Kickabaw ( talk) 20:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.