Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Devae

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Devae

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at the top professional level of the sport in his country, or on another notable team. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination McMarcoP (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this player has played for two teams in the USL Second Division, which is a fully-professional soccer league, and he therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. A quick Google shows brings up match reports such as this one which proves he has made professional appearances. GiantSnowman 14:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is the USL Second Division really fully professional? If we use that criterion, then every minor league baseball player from rookie league upward would be notable enough for an article. (I'll add the USL-D2 is the third division of American soccer, equivalent to Class AA of baseball.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - yes, it is fully-professional. This source confirms the USL is the lowest level of professional soccer in the States. GiantSnowman 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But how do you define "fully" professional? Can someone make even a meager living on a USL-D2 paycheck? I have my doubts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Fully" professional means 100% professional i.e. every player in the league is paid to play, and that is their only job. And as for making a living, I can't comment - how much are USL-2 players paid? Giant Snowman 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is my point. Is playing USL-D2 their only job, or do they have to take another job to make ends meet? If so, I would argue they are not 100% fully professional, and therefore do not meet notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well the source says it is fully professional, so one would assume that it is their only job. Giant Snowman 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's not an independent source. I'd like to see an independent opinion on this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - this source (sorry that it doesn't display better) deals with a USL-1 club that folded, but it describes the situation in its first year and clearly indicates that most players had to have other sources of income. I am very dubious of claims that the USL-2 is fully-pro in the sense that the English League One or League Two might be. USL-1 probably is, but USL-2 is almost certainly not. Jogurney (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ passes WP:ATH as the player has competed in the fully-professional USL D2. --Jimbo^[online] 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again "fully" is debatable. We only have the league's word to go on. As a sports writer by profession with some experience in covering minor league sports, I have my doubts as to whether it truly is fully professional, wherein it is the primary employment of a player or coach. And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid criteria for inclusion, but if I saw some other articles about USL-D2 players that have already passed muster, I might feel more inclined toward inclusion. Late addition: Jogurney's link above indicates that players in USL Division One, a level up from Devae's level, have to get additional employment or income sources, and therefore that level is not fully professional. If D1 is not fully professional, I see no way in heck that D2 is. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is kept it should be moved to John DeVae. Spiderone (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only coverage I have found of this person is fairly trivial and is related to high school and college accomplishments (such as being named to the Horizon League all-star team). I don't believe the article passes WP:ATHLETE since the USL-2 is almost certainly not fully-pro (see link above), nor does it meet the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've discussed the isolated incident in regard to the folding California based team before. USL-2 is considered a fully professional league, and the USL is quite clear about which of its leagues are professional and which are not, as shown by GiantSnowman. matt91486 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not consider the USL to be an independent arbiter of what is fully professional and what is not. It is in that league's interest to call itself "fully professional" to make itself look good, but that does not necessarily make it so by an objective observation. I seriously doubt that the California example is isolated. If the pay for a player from a team one level above this one is not enough to keep a player from having to seek other employment to make ends meet, how can we seriously believe the situation is any better in the division below? I want to see someone independent of the league refer to it as "fully professional," and tell us why that is so. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 12:39, 18 August 2009 (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.