Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus Geohaghon

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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus Geohaghon

WP:PROD case contested with no kind of explanation by an IP user with no significant edit history. The subject is a non-league footballer with no experience at all of professional football, he only played for amateur or semi-professional teams in a level no higher than Conference National, which is not fully professional, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, he easily passes WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All provided sources relate to local papers, and do not actually say what the man is actually notable for. We all know local newspapers usually cover about the results of the team where they are based in, often no matter what level they play. I could technically provide you with sources for each player in the Sicilian regional and amateur leagues down to Promozione at least, and Prima Categoria in some cases as well. However, I doubt these players might actually be agreed to be notable for an encyclopedia article. --Angelo (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concerns, I can't find anything in the "General notability guideline" of WP:N, which discounts the coverage he has received. Perhaps WP:N is too broad or needs more clarification, perhaps under "independent coverage", but as it stands, I feel Geohaghon passes WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not policy, and please note WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Presumption of notability is different than actual notability, and I think this case fits well with that verb. --Angelo (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peanut4 - passes notability through media coverage. Giant Snowman 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N, as per discussion at WikiProject Football talk page. - fchd (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Peanut here, the notability criteria are there to make sure that this doesn't turn into facebook or the yellow pages; this guy has several reliable sources which prove everything within the article, and also undoubtedly establish notability. – Toon ^(talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a good prospect. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kettering Town is a fully professional club. User:Kumordzi (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2008
- ........but they don't play in a fully professional league. There are at least five clubs in their league who are not professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2008 (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.