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 keep. Consensus is he passes WP:NFOOTY and that is a standard threshold. While GauchoDude is correct that it is only a guideline, so is the general notability guideline. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY GauchoDude (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is pretty WP:TOOSOON. Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. Wikicology (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the player has played in a national cup competition in a match involving two teams from a fully professional league, he seems to pass WP:NFOOTY. However, not sure whether he is even still playing. Unless sources can be found to indicate additional appearances in an FPL, then would suggest four years of non-appearances mean this player is likely to fail GNG easily and the period of grace given to young players starting out in their professional career would seem to have lapsed. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Fenix down correctly states, this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article needs improving, not deleting. Further sources are out there, 182 in a search for "Spencer Thompson" on HighBeam, though admittedly not all are for this person. Giant Snowman 17:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:GiantSnowman and User:Mikemor92, not sure where you see this "played in a cup competition" part of WP:NFOOTY, but I'm not seeing it. The only two features listed are 1. Being a senior international or 2. playing a league match in a fully professional league. Regardless, in my opinion not only does he fail WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG supersedes which he fails as well. For me, of a Google search for "Spencer Thompson soccer", 2 of the top 3 results aren't even of the Spencer Thompson in question, the other 1 being this Wikipedia page. All other coverage, seems to be WP:ROUTINE. And no, the other Spencer Thompson isn't notable either! – GauchoDude (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: - there is consensus at both AFD and WT:FOOTY that playing in ant competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues is enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. As for GNG, as I've stated stuff is out there, see HighBeam. Giant Snowman 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: @Mikemor92:: If that were the case, and I'm not saying that it isn't, then it would/should appear in WP:NFOOTY. It appears you may be working off of the old WP:FOOTYN, which was superseded by WP:NFOOTY as is stated at the top of FOOTYN's page. As for WP:GNG, the only non-WP:ROUTINE articles are: a quick mention that he was drafted, the same message, but from his college, a short interview, and two different stories about him entering MLS. I would be pretty surprised if that was all that would be required to meet an encyclopedic-level of notability and for me personally I don't find that as "significant coverage", hence the discussion. – GauchoDude (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: Nope, as an editor of nearly 9 years experience, who has dealt with literally thousands of soccer player AFDs in that time, I am thinking of community consensus at AFD and WT:FOOTY as I have already said. Giant Snowman 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Cool, I've been here 8 years working mainly on footy articles too. However, while you may operate under the assumption of community consensus, it's very black and white regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football's stance on notability, which is spelled out here and superseded by this and this. Wikipedia and the community maintains those as the guidelines to determine notability, full stop. If you feel that should be changed, that's a separate conversation for a different day, however for this AfD I'm operating with the clearly defined and established guidelines.

In any event, GNG is the end all/be all and must be met for this article to be kept, which I still personally do not believe it meets. – GauchoDude (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFOOTY is not limiting. There are any number of unwritten notability rules consistently applied at AfD that are just as representative of community consensus as the written guideline. One of these rules is that notability is conferred by national cup appearances between two FPL clubs. You'd hard pressed to find even one AfD in which national cup appearances were relevant and this rule was not applied. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put this into perspective, in every afd this year in which national cup appearances were mentioned, whether they were relevant or not, this rule was also mentioned, and was applied when relevant. In two cases the articles in question were kept because the footballers in question had played in a national cup match between to FPL sides (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isak Ssewankambo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahar Hirsh). In four cases the articles were deleted because the relevant cup matches featured at least one non-FPL club (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/İbrahim Coşkun, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răzvan Grădinaru, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Argilashki). In two cases, the articles were kept due to some other source of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aljaž Cotman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Salazar). In two cases, the rule received a tangential mention despite not being relevant to the notability of the articles in question (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Italiano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayal Zeynalov). Most importantly, in none of the ten cases where the matter came up was the rule ignored or its validity disputed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in national cup between 2 MLS teams [1] Nfitz (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, therefore not notable. Just because he appeared in 1 match doesn't make him automatically notable. 2605:A601:4E3:6301:F5F9:1793:8992:216C (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guys, you're all focusing on WP:NFOOTY (which by the listed definition he also fails), but no one has demonstrated this meets WP:GNG, which is the overall criteria that needs to be met. WP:NFOOTY is only a guideline "... used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." If he doesn't meet GNG, he shouldn't have an article, regardless of WP:FOOTY status or lack thereof. – GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (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.