Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Makabu-Makalambay

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 noting that there is substancial keep opinion voiced they arent necessarily a comprehensive keep all, the delete opinions are of a similar note. Gnan garra 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Makabu-Makalambay

Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

*Keep I don't know much about soccer, but it appears all of these players are a part of a professional soccer team. Henceforce, they are notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Please see note below[reply]

No. A player must have played in a professional league, not just be a benchwarmer never making an appearence. Mattythewhite 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they are a part of the team, which is professional, they will, at some point play, which will automatically guarantee notability. Why delete just to recreate? Waste of time. Whether he has physically played or not is irrelevant to me. He's on the team, he's listed on the official roster as being a reserve player, which means he can go in at any time. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the players who play for big clubs be kept? And why should players for smaller clubs be deleted? Injustice. Mattythewhite 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't understand your question? You are kind of proving our point. Guidelines state that if it's a professional club, or even the highest amateur level, it's notable. These guys are on a professional level, and should be kept --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". Note played. It means actually having made an appearence. Mattythewhite 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already go over this a few lines up? /sigh --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did we? Where. Well you're wrong, they don't pass notability. Mattythewhite 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh. I !voted keep. You said they didn't pass notability because they didn't play in the professional league yet, they are just benchwarmers. Then I replied and explained my reasoning. Then you bring up the played issue again. Hence why I said "didn't we go over this" I would think someone could someone could miss that if it was a large discussion, but geesh it's only a few lines up --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then.... they fail notability. Sorry about repeating myself, but they fail! Mattythewhite 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP for Michael Woods. He has played for England at U17 level and has made two appearances in FA Cup games for Chelsea last season. If you delete him now, the article will need to be replaced very soon, probably next season as he has a very promising career ahead of him. I have no opinion on the other players. --Vivenot 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless it can be demonstrated that they have indeed played at the professional level. Keeping because they "probably will play someday in the future" is conferring notability via speculation and is inappropriate - the claim that "it may become notable" could be speculatively applied to anything. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that WP:BIO is a guideline. Considering the fact that he is 1) on the roster of the team, it's acceptable in my opinion for this to be kept. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that WP:BIO is a guideline. My opinion is that being on the roster is not acceptable as fufilling that guideline. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, it depends what you mean by playing "at the professional level". Michael Woods has played in FA Cup games but not in the Premier League. Do FA Cup games not count as professional appearances? --Vivenot 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Without looking this up, and just going from my gut...do you think that there have been articles on players who were drafted into the NFL (or the like) and haven't yet played? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment & Keep Take a look at the 2007 NFL Draft article. Here's an example of one player drafted's article:Jermon Bushrod. Granted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, however these players are the equivalent of the draftees for the NFL this past season. Wildthing61476 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did some more information on everyone, by reading up on their articles and doing cross references. Please read and review this, as my opinion has changed ecause all have stablished notability with some exceptions, according to the articles.

Michael Woods - Has played in a professional game. Per his article: making him the fourth-youngest player to ever play for Chelsea as he was 16 years and 275 days old on that day. He came on as a substitute for Frank Lampard in the 79th minute -- KEEP
Lee Sawyer - article says Played in England U18's. Don't see anything else really -- DELETE
Craig Cathcart - Team captain of Manchester_United_F.C., which is a professional club -- UNDECIDED on this one, could go either way
Mark Randall - Has played in 7 professional games, per his article: Randall signed for Arsenal on schoolboy forms and played seven matches in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06. -- KEEP
Armand Traoré - Has played in 6 professional games, per his article: making six appearances in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06, -- KEEP
Stephen Darby - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, which it seems is a youth professional club -- KEEP
Craig Lindfield - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, per his article: Lindfield is a striker who was part of Liverpool's FA Youth Cup winning side of 2006, scoring 7 goals in the competition -- KEEP
Andrew Barcham - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C., and per his article He made 19 appearances for the reserve team, including 15 starts and scored a vital goal in the key win against Arsenal that gave Tottenham an initiative in the title race. -- KEEP
Dorian Dervitte - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_FC, and per his article On 14 July 2006, he scored the first goal of his Tottenham career on his debut appearance in a pre-season friendly for the Spurs XI team in a 7-1 win against Enfield Town. Obviously he has played if he scored a goal. -- KEEP
Scott Jamieson - Played in the 2005_FIFA_U-17_World_Championship, per his article: He has represented Australia at U-17 level and was a member of Australia's squad for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship. -- KEEP
Yves Makabu-Makalambay - Ehh, I could go either way on this, if you go strictly by the BIO guideline, then technically he's not notable -- Abstain from a vote

--sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a few clarifications here: Firstly, I don't understand why you think Sawyer's England Under-18 cap is non-notable, but Jamieson's Australian Under-17 one is. Secondly, Catchcart is the captain of Manchester United's youth team. Thirdly, friendly games, youth team games and reserve team games are not first-team games, and therefore are non-notable. I don't think Mattythewhite is disputing that they've played a game of football at some point in their careers!

Well I don't know much about the U18 things...is it professional league? I say it's notable for Jamieson because he played in the FIFA world cup (ie: super bowl of soccer yes?) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He played in the under-17 world championship (very different from the FIFA World Cup!). I don't think it denotes notability.. Mattythewhite 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In past AFds, generally players have been kept if they have made an appearance for the first team of their club, be it in the league or cup. None of these players have made appearances for their club in league competition, but Randall, Traore, Woods, Barcham and Dervitte have all played for their clubs in cup competitions. It should be noted that the clubs these players play for frequently put out weakened sides in cup competitions, and that's something you might want to take into consideration. At present, I abstain from voting, but may return later. HornetMike 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep they all have squad numbers at Premiership clubs, in most cases very big clubs. ArtVandelay13 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally Armand Traore has played in the League Cup Final. ArtVandelay13 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the big Premiership clubs get special treatment? Football isn't just about the "big" clubs. Mattythewhite 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a precedent was set with (possibly before) this nomination ("Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles"), in fact I've never seen a player with a squad number at any league club be successfully deleted, although it's not unreasonable that those at bigger clubs would stand a better chance, this is about notability, after all. P.S. How do you square these nominations with your creation of Neal Bishop, ten days ago? (I'm not looking for Bishop to be deleted either, as he will clearly be a first-team squad member). ArtVandelay13 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. as you said, I made him as he is looking to be a first-team regular at Barnet; and these nominations clearly aren't. But thats just speculation if anything really from me.. Mattythewhite 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under similarly stringent rules as those set by this nomination, that would fail WP:CRYSTAL. But it would be mad to delete him, just as it would be mad to delete these - these players are first-team squad members in Premiership, and often Champions League clubs, so they're going to appear on squad and team lists in a lot of major media sources, and people are going to want to find out more. Additionally, it makes Wikipedia's squad lists incomplete, and I fail to see that as any sort of benefit. ArtVandelay13 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the diverse comments about individual entries here, I would suggest that having them in a group AfD is probably not the best idea. At this point it would probably be beneficial to close this discussion and renominate each player individually to be judged on their own merits. Otherwise this is more than likely to end up being closed "No Consensus" in a few days anyway. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Arkyan, these should be moved to individual nominations. Also some of the reasoning given above has no relevance to football, and seems to be based upon little or no knowledge of the sport and seems to be based upon other sports, where different circumstances apply.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, this AfD is turning into a cluster and should be closed and the articles re-nominated separately. I think it's great that (unlike a lot of people who !vote in AfDs) sumnjim has put a lot of thought into his !votes, but his reasoning clearly demonstrates that he isn't particuarly clued up on football......... ChrisTheDude 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentIndeed, the effort put in by sumnjim should be applauded even with by their own admission little knowledge of football.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blush Thanks guys, but being from the United States I call it soccer :) True, I'm not up to par with soccer like I am with American Sports, but I think I did a reasonably decent job of trying to assert notability Have a nice day. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The fact that they all have squad numbers at prestigious, top-level clubs means that they are notable enough. I watch the squad templates, and have noticed that Arsenal and Liverpool, in particular, are careful to only include notable players. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three Chelsea players may well have squad numbers but that is as part of the Reserve squad rather than the First team squad. They are not listed as being part of the Chelsea First team squad. They are listed in their Reserve Squad only.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But squad numbers are only used in first-team football. If a player has a squad number, then it's an acknowledgement that they're part of the first team squad; available for selection (Sawyer was on the bench in the last league game of the season). ArtVandelay13 23:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woods, Darby, Barcham, Dervitte and Lindfield as they play for pro league teams. The others I will remain neutral.--JForget 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although checking back the articles, most of them are part of big teams such as Manchester United, Liverpool F.C, Arsenal and Chelsea - so weak keep for the remainder of the noms.--JForget 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Close this AfD and relist in smaller groups. But my own opinion is, sitting on the bench for a professional match counts as playing.Ga rr ie 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cathcart. He is the captain of the Manchester United F.C. Reserve team and was named as an unused substitute for a few games at the end of the 2006-07 season. - PeeJay 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darby & Lindfield. Both have professional contracts with Liverpool FC and have first team squad numbers which appear on the back of the first team Programmes. Both are registered with UEFA and are eligible to play champions league football. Winning back to back FA youth cups is a notable event. Playing for your country at any level is a notable event.TammyDog 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always thought it was acceptable to have articles for players in squads where the rest of the squad has an article and meet notability. I can't find the page with this guideline on but I'm sure someone can clarify whether this is a valid reason to keep these articles. Dave101→talk 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Yves Makabu-Makalambay. His transfer to Hibs is even on page 2 in the Belgian sports journal Sportwereld. Karma-AH 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all as they are on the squads of teams where almost all have articles per "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles". Dave101→talk 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although the player doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements, he's likely to make his professional debut shortly. U-21 international, who made the CL squad, notable ebough for me. Ban Ray 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lindfield & Darby, for the reasons suggested by TammyDog; winning back-to-back F.A. Youth Cups constitutes a notable event. Univalonso 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.