Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikey Lopez

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. No prejudice towards recreation when the relevant guidelines are met. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Lopez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested for this reason – Consensus has been in the past that a player making an appearance for a fully pro side in a competitive game meets the spirit (if not the letter of the law) of WP:NFOOTY regardless of the opposition (i.e. playing non-fully pro sides in cup games). That is not true. In order for a player to meet WP:NFOOTBALL by making a competitive cup appearance, both clubs have to be fully pro. Lopez's cup appearance came against a PDL club, which is not fully pro. Therefore he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. He has not played in a fully pro league and cup appearances only grant notability if both teams are fully pro, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd be interested to see where the "consensus" the PROD contestor mentions has come from, because as far as as I was aware it was the opposite! Regardless, consensus changes, and I do not think playing in a lowly cup game meets WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, the article fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to what the nominator claims, past consensus was that players making an appearance in a cup game for a fully-professional side meet the spirit, if not the letter of WP:FOOTYN - the status of the opposition is irrelevant. See Egghead06's comment in this AfD ("precedent seems to have been set long ago for an appearance in the FA/League Cup or even the Football League trophy to make a player notable when appearing for a fully pro team") and several of the comments on this AfD (e.g. "a first-team match for a FL team is enough, regardless of who it's against"). Number 5 7 08:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those AFDs are from 3/4 years ago, I'm positive there are some more recent AFDs with a different outcome! But as I've stated above, consensus can change, and the fact that this article fails WP:GNG is a more important consideration. Giant Snowman 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been seven afd's since last December where the decision was that cup appearances in which at least one of the clubs does not play in an FPL do not confer notability. See Bamidele Alli, Kevin Ellis (American soccer), Oliver Stegmayer, Scott Bolkan, Ryan Young (footballer), José Luis Gayá, Dmitry Vasilyev (footballer born 1983), and Michael Bustamante. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The criteria for cup appearances is debatable when 20 minutes in the early rounds of a minor tournament is the only claim to fame for the less successful Scott Sinclair, who then disappears into non-league obscurity. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per nomination, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. One brief cup appearance is not enough, especially as it wasn't against a fully-professional side. Given that this occurred very recently, however, I believe userfying the article is the best answer, as it may well be that Mr. Lopez is notable soon. (Also, Jericho, I AfDed the article you linked to there.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Lopez has been away from his MLS team because he's part of the United States roster that will play in the upcoming U-20 World Cup. That alone will not qualify him under WP:NFOOTBALL, but it is also the only thing that has prevented him from either playing for Sporting KC or going on loan to a professional team, which would qualify him. It's a page that is going to be created sooner rather than later, so I would suggest userfying it. Davehogg (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - Unfortunately this subject is not notable yet, but will much likely be in not long time. If the article-creator it should be userfied, or it can be recreated by an admin once it meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page is already userfyed technically by me (see User:ArsenalFan700/Mikey Lopez). If you look at my userfyed page and this page then you will see that it is almost a direct copy with some changes. I can only assume that this was a direct copy and paste job with revisions. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how it counts as a userfy if you just create a user page when the debate is still in progress. – Michael (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ArsenalFan700 (talk · contribs) means is that their 'user page' was actually created before this article was created by a seperate user, and it was more-than-likely copy & pasted by the latter. Giant Snowman 10:30, 24 June 2013 (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.