Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Older (2nd nomination)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Jordan Older

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

I am concerned that the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I have gone over each of its current citations and here are my conclusions:

Cite #1, which is used five times in the article, references an article on the website "futebolinterior.com.br". The site's content appears to consist mostly of tables of soccer matches— its articles are pulled in from other web sites, and it does not appear to have any original publication content or editorial staff of its own. It's principal draw is for people looking to see which team beat which in year X, and it is plastered with advertisements. Furthermore, I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source. My web search on the domain produced a list of statistical information about the site (number of visits per month, estimated value in US$, etc.), but nothing about its role as an independent source of reliable news on anything.

All of that wouldn't matter so much if the citation had an author. Instead, the author of the piece is "Agência Futebol Interior," which sounds to me a lot like "futebol interior", etc. Given the autobiographical nature of the piece, it might easily have been composed by the subject of the Wikipedia article himself.

"Cite" #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.

Cite #3 is a legitimate citation to a legitimate newspaper. However, the article it links to is not about the subject of the Wikipedia article, but rather to a player that he helped get to Germany. It could be used to help establish the notability of THAT individual, but cannot be used to establish the notability of the article's current subject.

Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.

Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information.

Cite #6 is a link to a poll result. According to the page itself, in order to appear in the poll result, a person has to have received more then one vote from a "fan" during an open voting period. Jordan Older appears at the very bottom of the table as a person who got at least two votes in the poll. It does not say how many votes he received, and in any case appearing on a table such as this does not exactly constitute "coverage" because there is no "article" here. (Frankly, if this citation does anything, it rather embarrassingly indicates how NON-notable Older is.)

Cite #7 is a link to a table of match information. Again, there is no article here, just table of scores. Like any such table or a business listing in a telephone directory, it does not go towards establishing notability.

Cite #8 is a link to the Ventura Film Festival website— not an independent source.

Cite #9 is to a legitimate newspaper, but the newspaper article it links to does not mention the article's subject. It is a news article about West Side Story.

Cite #10 is to a legitimate news article— about the Ventura Film Festival. Older is briefly mentioned in the article, but he is not its subject. This kind of passing reference cannot be used to establish notability.

My own additional and independent review of evidence of notability did not produce anything that would constitute multiple reliable third-party sources. Furthermore, given the tone and style of the article and the fact that its principal author has no edit history other than its creation and maintenance, I am concerned that this individual may have a conflict of interest. This, combined with the insubstantial nature of the 10 citations the article currently includes, moves me to propose that the article be considered for deletion. Also please note that the article was already nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax shortly after its creation, and the nomination failed (the article was and is not a hoax— its subject still doesn't appear to be notable, however). KDS4444^Talk 05:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am a great supporter of American football, but I don't quite understand the objections made here. First of all, User:KDS4444 claims that the article does not meet the notability standards while, on the contrary, the notability guideline says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable."

Cite #7 clearly provides that the subject was the part of a fully professional league (USL is listed in the WikiProject fully professional leagues). Irrespective of whether cite # 7 is a table or an editorial article, it clearly establishes that the subject was a player who has appeared in a fully professional league, thus meeting the Wikipedia notability standards.

I have gone over each of the objections of User:KDS4444 and here are my views:

Cite #1: User:KDS4444 claims that the articles of this website are pulled from some other sources and that the website does not have any original publications. I searched the Alexa.com website and came to know that a site ranking 489 in Alexa (sites under 1000 are highly authoritative like the New York Times) regularly uses content from and links to the news articles of the Futebol Interior web site ( http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/ ) One such example can be seen here --> http://bbs.hupu.com/4907578.html

The example above helps prove the fact that http://www.futebolinterior.com.br is an independent source of reliable news, and can be used to judge the notability of the subject.

Cite #2: Shows that the subject's team was in the Serie A, which qualifies it as notable because it is listed as a "fully professional league".

Cite #3: The purpose of the cite is to help establish the fact that the subject has played for South America, Europe and North America. An excerpt from the source provides: “Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe, and he believed that Ledesma possessed the talent to make the transition overseas.” That clearly establishes the notability of the subject. I don’t understand the comments of User:KDS4444 about how it does NOT develop notability at all! It clearly does establish subject notability here.

Cite #4 : The information in the reference provides that he has played in the top Brazilian Football League. Again I’m unable to understand how it is a mistake!

Cite #5: It might not be the most reliable source, but it does provide valuable information and backs up the information saying the same thing as the other references. Nothing wrong with that!

Cite #6: First of all, Soccer America is one of the most esteemed poles in the country, and secondly popularity and notability are two entirely different things. A very notable player may get the least votes, but that doesn’t mean he is not notable. Among all the England players, if Emile Heskey (or any other player) gets the least votes, he still remains notable. In fact, a player who is the least popular in one poll may be the most popular in the other. Further, if you know your football, this list is only comprised of American football legends, each and every one of them. So being low on the list full of legends is not so bad!

Citation #7: Well, this is the official website of USL and it clearly provides that Jordan Older played in (at least one) fully professional league, thus meeting the notability standards.

Citation #8 & #9: Well, every citation does not prove notability. The primary purpose of the references is to help the reader further pursue the article and reference the other claims about the film festival.

Citation #10: Article states: “(The Ventural Film Festival) Started by Jordan Older in 2004, the event is now a volunteer-based organization that donates a majority of the profits to environmental issues such as forest and ocean preservation”. True, it’s not the main subject of the article; but it does tell that Older was the founder of this event. Thus, the purpose of the reference is fully served.

Overall, I think article had some minor issues, but User:KDS4444 should have focused on correcting them rather than search for the reasons to justify the deletion of the article. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia that have errors of tone or formatting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t notable, or they should be considered for deletion. Therefore, my consensus is KEEP I strongly object to the deletion of the article and request the volunteers to help improve this article by correcting the issues present in the tone and format of this article. Usmanwardag (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you look, he played in USL Premier Development League, which is an amateur league. That appears to be the only independent confirmation of him playing in an actual soccer game with an actual team.~~ Updated further down.LionMans Account (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I reviewed this article from AFC and found nothing wrong with it. Usmanwardag found notablility. Two reasons that push me towards "Keep". buff bills 7701 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as hoax removed) If you look, you won't find his name on any transfer lists. A soccer player who played in as many professional leagues as this person claims would appear there. He appears to be a self-promoter from what I've seen. LionMans Account (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionMans This article has already had the HOAX vote declined/denied. Please stick to the issue at hand which is notability. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the deletion of my article about Jordan Older. I respect your right to vote to delete it. However it's already been voted as NOT A HOAX. This issue is notability here. Please correct your argument to address this. Regarding your claim about not appearing on any transfer lists here is my logic. I can find him on some but where do you find the transfer lists from the 1990's? If you could find a "transfer list" from then it wouldn't be on the Internet and you can't even find Eric Wynalda who is the #1 American soccer player of all time on a transfer list from 1993. Thanks again for your time. I think you should reconsider your logic and focus on the notability issue at hand.

To refute your hasty claims a quick search finds transfer lists and more stats, BOTH PROVE YOU WRONG

I respect your right to want to delete the article but more and more people are reading it and agreeing with me and my logic and voting to KEEP it.

KEEP Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over everything and all the references look solid. And I Googled him and found him appearing on several transfer lists and even talk of him being on the "DFL" transfer list back in 2004 (although this is not a newspaper report) it does refute your idea that he's not on any transfer lists.

I see nothing wrong with the article and find it interesting. KEEP Eragon.raju (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to find those. Although the third link is a message board (generally not admissible), the rest of the comments on the thread seem to suggest people don't have a high opinion of him. The first two (same link, different languages), shows a transfer in 2005 from A-League (1995–2004)San Diego Flash (which folded in 2001) to Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–08)San Diego Sockers (2001–04), which folded in 2004. No team of those names played again until 2009. Just makes me skeptical. LionMans Account (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if people have a high opinion of him; popularity is not one of the inclusion criteria. Notability is, and as there are several references stating that he's played in professional leagues he seems to meet that one. I think, to justify deleting the article, you're going to have to demonstrate that those sources are wrong and back it up with appropriate RS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That message board is full of articles just about the subject, but who cares? They are just gossip for the most part and not admissable. The point still proves, by your own rules that the subject meets Association Football notability by having appeared in a fully professional league (and more than one even) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Association_football

Knowing this why don't you change your vote to KEEP ? It's a simple matter of yes did he appear in a fully professional league?. The fact is (ref #7 alone proves beynd a shadow of doubt) that he did! End of story. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed in the interest of keeping this discussion readable for people with less than half an hour of free time. Doesn't mean the stuff in here isn't worth reading. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Score 6-2 in favor of KEEP. There are 6 KEEP and 2 delete if you count the anonymous post on the talk page here and C.Fred voting to keep that it WAS NOT A HOAX. And there are maybe one or two more who protected it as not a hoax as well. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Score isn't kept. The main issue is whether this article meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Articles stay here for roughly 7 days (sometimes more) unless they get speedy deleted (which this one won't). LionMans Account (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a zen master. Notability for Football Association players is defined as having played in a fully professinal league. The subject of my article has played in more than one fully professional league. This is satisfied by reference #7 from the fully professional USL league (and the other leagues but they aren't even needed to establish subject's notability, they are just extra padding for my claims.) And yes, it seems the score is kept. The deletion of articles is defined by Wikipedia to be determined by the consensus (score) of the editors who say KEEP or DELETE. Here is the football notability link for you. The links you posted WP:N and WP:BIO both link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Association_football it says in item 2 that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." and all of the subjects leagues are listed in the list of fully professional leagues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. Thanks again for your help in fortifying my proof and claims. The issue is really simply proved by reference #7, but like I said there are 9 other references supporting and providing further proof from 3rd party, reputable, newspapers and magazines and official team and league web sites. At this point I feel that you should read your own links (as well as the transfer lists) that you posted and change your vote to KEEP. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a reference [1] showing he played for San Diego Gauchos, who played in ~~USL Premier Development League, an amateur league.~~ Seriously, calm down. LionMans Account (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionsMans Account Errrrr- wrong. You must be looking at the wrong link. The page linked clearly says USL Professional League and that is clearly listed on the list of fully professional leagues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues

Keep trying, maybe you'll say that the Serie A where Pele and Neymar played isn't professional too? In fact the subject lived and played in the same city as Pele and on the same team as Neymar. Please stop with the horsing around when you've been proven wrong a real man admits it. Change your vote to KEEP Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, USL Second Division (I was incorrect). At the time though, they were in the third tier for US Soccer. I was able to find information showing he played in one other game. However, it is still extremely difficult to show notablity (other than an article simply saying he played in 2 games). LionMans Account (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionMans Account] Why do you keep saying things like this when you know they aren't true? http://soccerstats.us/bios/jordan-older/ shows 4 games.

Here is another FULLY PRO LEAGUE GAME he appeared in: http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435

and another http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529

This is actually a lot of references for small defunct pro soccer league from 2003 in America. The main reference is the feature article from the top soccer newspaper in Brazil http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol

This is also good and says he played professional in Europe and Brazil and is a VALID reference since it is a full newspaper article: http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html

And just to remind you. Every team this player has played for is listed as a fully professional league. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues

Brazil BRA CONMEBOL Campeonato Brasileiro Série A[17] Yes

Campeonato Brasileiro Série B[17] Yes

Campeonato Paulista Série A1[18][dead link] Yes

I appreciate your efforts and thank you for letting me provide the correct information for you so you will know the truth. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference shows him playing for the Gauchos when they were in a professional league. If you look at it you'll find a drop-down to let you find matches by league. The league for that game is USL PRO, ergo Older played in a professional league.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information you have is incorrect. The San Diego Gauchos played in the USL Professional League in 2003 when the subject appeared for them. In later years they dropped to the amateur league. You are seriously uninformed and mis-representing the facts again. Just read the link from reference #7 it clearly says USL "Pro Soccer League" and is dated 2003. Fussballspieler11 (talk) Here is the link for reference #7. http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html I have other ones too that clearly say USL "Pro Soccer League" where the subject played. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)' Note: even the URL says "uslpro" while the PDL (amateur) part of their web site for the amateur teams has a different sub-section of the site noted by a different URL, differen label on the page, and a different banner that says PDL not USL PRO.[reply]

Shown here

http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/ <-- amateur

http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html <-- professional

You've now spent over 8 hours trying to prove the unprovable to get my article deleted. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-pro player who lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are ample RS confirming that Older has played professionally. The references are a mess, but cite 7 is a record for a professional league game he took part in. Cite 3 is an RS and it states quite clearly that he has played professionally. I'm also concerned about inaccurate statements by some of those nominating for deletion. For example KDS4444 claims that cite 4 is "an article about soccer in German." I thought I'd have a look at it, because I speak German, but guess what? It's not in German; it's in Norwegian, as far as I can tell. I don't see how he can disregard a reference without even being able to tell what language it's in. Older is hardly a world-class player but there seems little doubt that he's played professionally, so that makes him notable by WP's criteria. To be honest this request looks frivolous.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970: I dismissed this reference cursorily because I saw it being used in the article as a citation for the musical West Side Story, which it obviously is not. In that sense, the language in which it is written is utterly irrelevant: the reference has nothing to do with a musical. Did you read my comment on this citation in the initial proposal for deletion? If so, then why not address this? If not, then... can I ask you to do so before you offer additional commentary? (Really, at this point, the strident nature of the article's creator is just giving me a headache. I am hoping you are more rational but am surprised that you don't recognize your Broadway shows from the 1970s (see, that last bit is a joke, meant to make you chuckle, Yes? Nuthin' more, nuthin' less)). KDS4444^Talk 21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Norwegian either, but Swedish. Which I know for a fact since I'm half Swedish, and fluent in that language. The website is a team website for "Ljungskile SK", a team that at that time played in the Swedish third division, and Jordan Older is only mentioned in passing at the end of a story about a match between "Ljungskile SK" and "Mjällby IF" in 2005, as a player that was to be tested by Ljungskile. There's also another story on the same website that mentions Jordan Older in passing, just saying that he wasn't good enough so they weren't interested in his services. It is in other words a reference that does not establish any notability for him. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a not-a-vote, just a comment. I am the administrator who declined the request to speedy delete the article as a hoax. Because some sources validated claims in the article, it did not appear to be a blatant hoax, so CSD G3 did not apply. I had reservations about whether there were enough sources above the local level to meet WP:GNG and indicated that the article might wind up here. I also posted a message at WikiProject Football to bring in subject matter experts. I have not, and do not at this time, express an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in this AfD proceeding; my actions only related to speedy deletion criteria G3 and A7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about a non-notable footballer. While it appears that he played a few minutes in the USL Second Division with the Gauchos (probably not in a fully-pro league), there is simply no evidence that this article could ever satisfy the GNG. The Ventura County Star article isn't significant coverage, and it cannot be considered verification of the claim that Older played in a fully-pro league. We went through this with the earlier version of the article in 2007 (it was substantially the same). Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed further lengthy discussion. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ User:Jogurney Thanks for your comments, but you need to look over the references again. Your comments don't match and since 2007 all the references are new. So maybe you need to be updated? Some points: 1) the Ventura County Star is not used as a reference for any of the notability, only to support the Ventura Film Festival information. It was never used to claim anything about soccer. 2) There are three(3) independent newspapers covering and supporting that the subject played in a "fully-pro" league. It's a simple concept. Either he appeared in a game in a league listed as fully pro (he did) or not. That's all that's required to be notable according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL#Association_football . The league is listed as a fully pro league, so is the Brazilian Serie A and Paulista Serie A, that's 3 fully-pro leagues verified by indpendent sources. 3) you said the the leauge is not fully pro? Why then is it then listed on Wikipedia as being fully pro? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues 4) you are mis-representing the number of minutes played, it's surely not a "few minutes" http://soccerstats.us/bios/jordan-older/ shows its 4 games in 2003 for the USL2 during the players retirement years, his mid 30's 5) What are your motives for down playing this players accomplishments over a 5 year period? 6) Futebol Interior is not a local newspaper it covers all of the top soccer and sports news in Brazil and is one of the top 900 most visited web sites in all of Brazil and is ranked as very athoritative by Alexa. This is why I used it for the first reference. It's the most clear and impressive reference and then is followed by the Palos Verdes News, then followed by the official game report from the USL Pro leauge. That's 3 qualifying references that aren't just "local news". It's been 6 years since you last called to delete this article so please update yourself on the new references since you are clearly off a little bit by saying the Ventura County Star was used, at all to support any soccer claims in my article, because it was not in anyway used for this. I'm not calling you blind but you must have mis-read things. Thanks again for taking time to review my article. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. A user should only have one !vote (keep, delete, etc.) on the page. If they change their mind, they should strike out the old recommendation. Since you've duplicated your keep recommendation across multiple comments, I've struck this one. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred. Here's a communication I just posted to Jogurny's talk page:

User:Jogurney I'm concerened that you didn't really read the article and it's references.
You made some very inacurrate comments:
1) Ventura County Star was used to reference soccer claims
- this never happened, the Ventura County Star articles were in reference to the subject being the founder of the Ventura Film Festival and listing the celebrity guests, nothing about soccer here
2) subject played in "probably not in a fully-pro league"
- reference 1 lists 3 teams in the Paulista Serie A and 1 team in the Brazilian Serie A, these are THE biggest leagues in Brazil and are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- reference 7 lists the USL Pro Soccer League (USL 1 or 2) where the subject played 4 games in 2003, these are not the biggest leagues in the USA but they are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- reference 3 lists that the subject played professionally in Brazil and Europe and so much so that he is able to orchestrate player transfers of local kids into the German Bundesliga
3) the official Sao Paulo FC fan site/blog from 1999 lists the same 3 teams as the Futebol Interior feature article, which I found on the first page of Futebol Interior
- reference 1 lists 3 teams in the Paulista Serie A and 1 team in the Brazilian Serie A, these are THE biggest leagues in Brazil and are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- it also lists him as playing along site Sao Paulo FC star defender in Wilson
4) You're quick to support the deletion of this players article, 6 years later, when all the references are new and you clearly didn't read them (based on your mistaken claims) so I'm wondering if you have some kind of vendetta? 6 years is a long time for you to be doing this.
Thanks for your time, never the less. I respect your right to disagree.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Comment. I don't appreciate the tone of your reply, but let me address your concerns. I mentioned the VC Star article because I found it while searching for online sources about Jordan Older. The author states that Older was a former pro soccer player, but it provides no evidence that he played even a single competitive match or that the leagues he might have played in were fully-pro. To date, the only league I can be confident he appeared in the USL Second (with the Gauchos) for 100+ minutes. The is very borderline even on a strict interpretation that one second of play in a fully-pro league (if indeed the USL Second was fully-pro at the time) is enough to meet NFOOTBALL (despite loads of AfDs which have held that the GNG needs to be met). While I understand that there are sources noting Older was under contract at fully-pro Brazilian clubs, there is no indication that he ever appeared for one of them in a competitive match in a fully-pro league. He might have trained with the reserves, or even appeared in a friendly, but there is nothing to show that he played in Serie A or the Paulista championship. As it stands, this article has different sources than the one in 2007, but they go no further in demonstrating compliance with NFOOTBALL or more importantly the GNG. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment'. Here is a more recent example of an American soccer player from the USL lower divisions that signed with a Brazilian professional soccer club, yet never made an appearance in anything but a reserve match. It's not so difficult to believe that Older had a similar experience. Jogurney (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources so fails WP:GNG, which outweighs the possibility of him barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL. The US lower leagues are only barely fully-pro now, I very much doubt they were 15-20 years ago when this guy was playing. Note to those !voting keep - to pass WP:NFOOTBALL you have to actually play (not just be signed to a roster), and you have to play in a fully-professional league, not just for a professional team. Giant Snowman 08:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse more. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ User:GiantSnowman There is no doubt that the subject did play in several fully professional leagues Proof here:

REPORTED IN NEWSPAPERS AND FULLY PRO LEAGUE SITES:

http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23496 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html (respected print and online newspaper) http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol (highly regarded #1 soccer news site from Brazil and ranked highly on Alexa) http://web.archive.org/web/20020209014728/http://www.tricolornet.com.br/noticias/arquivo1999/990717.htm (Official team blog for Sao Paulo FC says he played along side Wilson in BRAZIL and for 3 fully pro Brazilian Teams)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if some of the users voting for the deletion of this page are equally active and/or critical about other football pages/articles/players on Wikipedia as well? Just a quick search on the history of those users and I found "NO!". I have watched a lot of football and I keep on searching players on Wikipedia, never did I find such a heated discussion! To me, it's apparent that some of the users on this page are working on a hidden agenda, especially when you suddenly appear out of nowhere and tag a page for deletion. Usmanwardag (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you clearly are not a member of WP:FOOTBALL then, as I am - if you were, you would see a high turnover of non-notable articles getting deleted (not that that has any impact whatsoever on this discussion). What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! Giant Snowman 12:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's wikis for you - everyone gets to play. In any case the issue is whether or not Older meets the notability criteria of having played in a professional league, not who wants the article kept/deleted/tattooed on Alyson Hannigan's delectable buttocks. Really, it's simple. Has he played in a professional league? If so he's notable; if not he isn't. It looks like he has, so what's the argument about?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is satisfied, there are 10 sources. There are 2 sources saying he played in the top leagues in Brazil, there are 3 links from the official USL Pro web site, there are 2 sources outlining that he played professionally in Brazil and Europe. There are 2,834 american soccer player articles on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_soccer_players A quick glance at them show that :::MOST::: lack the same level of references as my article. And many USL Pro players are listed, some using the same kind of game day stats that I have used and some are blatant fakes with MLS links that go to dead links. Here are a few from my subject's area:

I could literally go on ALL DAY listing players with 1) less reliable references 2) less proveable playing experience 3) less wp:gng i.e. less coverage in the newspapers. This is mute point. You guys are trying every avenue to delete my article and its becoming obvious.

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 or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not a member of WP:FOOTBALL, and as I said, I am just an ordinary reader who has a lot of interest in football. I search for a lot of other articles (mostly sports related) on Wikipedia, and have never found such debates going on there. I've also seen a number of pages where there are minor issues but that's not the way things work. The general rule is: if you find an issue, correct it. If you can't, then wait for some other volunteer. This page might not be up to the Wikipedia's standard but is certainly notable! Usmanwardag (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 12:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "certainly notable"? Has it received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Giant Snowman 12:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on listing a number of sources here but here's one for your review. http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol Jordan Older is the main subject of this article and so, this is not just a passing reference. Furthermore, http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/ is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. You can see here a number of wikipedia entries that link to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=futebolinterior.com.br&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 I sincerely hope you will objectively look at this discussion and change your vote to KEEP. Usmanwardag (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article never mentions that Older played in a competitive match for any of those clubs. As I noted above, it is quite possible that he signed for the clubs but only trained and played in the reserves. If he had played in competitive matches, it's much more likely that reliable online Brazilian soccer sources like Globo Esporte or UOL would have some mention of him. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435 Please see the match information. Older played for seven minutes in a game of a fully professional league. http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529 Older played for 26 minutes in a game of a fully professional league. Do I need anything else to prove that he has played in a competitive match for those clubs? Please see cite #6 as well, in which Older was a part of a poll, which ranked the players on the basis of popularity. It was a pole of really competitive players (legends you can say), and only those would have got in who were actually playing the games (and were not just only reserves). Usmanwardag (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those links don't mention Paulista, União São João or Portuguesa Santista matches in 1994 or 1998 (like the cited article does). No one is questioning whether Older played a few minutes for San Diego Gauchos in 2003, so please don't try to confuse the issue. Jogurney (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I dare say that you're trying to confuse things here? Older has clearly played more than once in the matches of a fully professional league. Can you please go to the bottom of the thread and see my clarification? Usmanwardag (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this page was tampered with and changed today or yesterday and changes so that my links above don't go directly to the USL Pro Leagues anymore, but the USL Pro Leagues and the Brazil leagues, in which the subject is proven to have played, are still listed as fully professional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got a diff (link to the specific edit) for that? I don't see any evidence of ELs or references changed in the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do the "diff" to get the past versions of pages. I've only been on this site for a couple days. But here is what happened:

The page that was tampered/changed Wikipage is the one that lists the fully professional leagues and was center point to my notability claim for my subject. What happened was the format changed. It's still there, same leagues, but they deleted the "defunct league category" as far as I can tell and that was one of my main links and now it doesn't work so its a blow to my articles defense and a plus to the deleters because it makes me look crazy when I say click here to see the list of the leagues and now it just goes to the top of the page. You can see in this page how many times I linked to the #Defunct_Leagues has and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues this link used to have a defunct leagues section that I based most of my defense upon and, what do you know, its gone today. In short this link used to work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues and now it doesnt. Thanks again for your time and energy.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first reference is from a major news portal that has MOST COMPREHENSIVE LIVE SOCCER NEWS AND SCORES IN THE COUNTRY OF BRAZIL

I also want to let everyone know about the authority of my first reference. The news agency is called FUTEBOL INTERIOR. Most of you aren't familiar with Brazilian culture or sporting/soccer news so you will not know this source. But it is used often on Wikipedia as a source/reference. The translation is not "Indoor Soccer" like the machine translator at Google first says. It means "Inside Football" and it is a double entendre because it started out, over 10 years ago, only covering the area of the interior/inner parts of the Sao Paulo state of Brazil. Now it has global coverage, live chats, live scores, live game transmissions, columns, blogs, features, many expert soccer journalists from all parts of Brazil and the world. It's one of the best, if not the best place to get news about every major soccer team and league in Brazil.

Here is more about it from it's ABOUT page translated into English: (be sure to read the last line)

About Us
The Portal Inside Soccer is the most comprehensive of its kind, giving wide coverage to professional clubs from all over Brazil, as well as the world.
With over 10 years of existence, many new features are visible, such as hot sites and tools, providing information to the visitors so easier and attractive.
Great events of football, Brazil and the world, are also featured in most of the country Portal Football.
Between competitions disclosed, many exclusively, are: State (all), the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A, B, C and D; Cup Brazil, South American Cup, Libertadores Cup, as well as major European Championships.
Another tool is the consolidated Score Live, the most comprehensive in the country, presenting results online (in real time) of all State (exclusive) and all major competitions involving clubs and the Brazilian national team. There are more than 18 million hits per month.
This service is also available on Mobile Systems and WAP (mobile), leading information and entertainment will at any time and where the Internet is.
With high quality journalistic content, Soccer Inside achieved credibility and opened new spaces for the news. And today, provides information for major newspapers and sports agencies in the country, besides being a source of research bodies throughout Brazil.

Here is a recent feature article that appeared for almost a week on their front page: http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jogurney

1) are you being misleading by saying a "few" minutes? if you read the ussoccerstats.us you'll see its not just a few
2) there are plenty of reliable, 3rd party news references listing the Brazil A, and Paulista A teams, stating he played there, I suggest you read them, they are even FEATURES talking only about the subject and thus also satisfying the WP:GNG rules
3) there is other wide coverage of the subject in other well respected and reliable news and magazine publications, they are listed too, I suggest you read them too
4) it appears you are focusing on diminishing my subject's career and his reputation by minimizing his notability by using words like few and amateur, when your statements are completely the opposite of exaggeration
5) you are the main man in the deletion campaign, having been trying for 6 years to get his article deleted and you use the same wording as Lionmans Account "few" and "amateur" when these have already been struck out by a Wikipedia admin C.fred.

Myself and a few other honest Wikipedia editors/authors are already suspicious as to why you are spending 6 years targeting this subject when thousands of less notable player articles exist.(I listed just a few but don't want to be on here all day copy/pasting lesser american soccer players. Just go look in the american soccer player listing here on Wikipedia. Why do you deny the rules of Wikipedia stating that a player is notable if having appeared in a fully professional league? and on and on and on... and you're saying the same thing as 6 years ago when you cleary muffed your first critique appearing to having not even read the new references. Your actions are beyond my belief, honestly. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Claims like mr X played in the Brazilian Serie A can easily be verified/falsified using a database like this one [2]. As you can see it goes back a very long time before there was such a thing as internet. Cattivi (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No results. Giant Snowman 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a more detailed search on him, or rather three searches, with both his name and the name of each of the three clubs in Brazil that he seems to claim having played for (clubs that are mentioned in this story on futebolinterior.com, a story that apart from mentioning which clubs he claims to have played in has nothing to do with his career as a footballer), Paulista, União São João and Portuguesa Santista, with the same result, no matches played. For good measure I also took a look at those three clubs on the Portuguese Wikipedia (I speak a fairly decent Spanish so understanding written Portuguese is not a big problem), and it turns out that neither of them played in the Brazilian first division during the time that Older claims to have played for them (1994 in both Paulista and União São João and 1998 in Portuguesa Santista). Meaning that he couldn't possibly have played in the first division. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman just deleted TWO important comments I made. I'm officially calling foul play now and would like him punished for this and my article protected. It's simply wrong and unfair to not allow another Wikipedia editor to have free comment on his own page. As far as I can tell he has no more rights than I do. Even if he is an admin I am calling foul play, unfair block of my freedom of speech, whatever its called on here. It's simple NOT OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

What did you expect when you crapflood this thread (as well as another userpage)? The only comment worth adding back was about the person with a similar name from the database. Might I suggest posting a link to the game the person played? LionMans Account (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fussballspieler11:, yes, I removed this wall of text (including copyrighted information!) as it was disruptive. Most of your posts here have been similar (though not quite as extreme) and if you don't start contributing calmly, concisely, and without displaying OWNership issues then I will ask an uninvolved admin to intervene here. Giant Snowman 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed another comment that was short and concise. My long wall of text was important information to refute the claims of no WP:GNG. So I posted many links to show over 200 popular forum postings about my subject over around a decade of time. I also showed evidence of him playing in Brazil A, and Paulista A, but no one will see this now because you removed it, I feel unfairly.

I've made a complaint already about you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you for the time to edit my article. I respect your right to disagree, but not your right to censor me.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the Globo Esporte match report showing an "Odair" played for União São João in Serie A during 1994 is evidence that Jordan Older played in the match (because it was a mispelling of his name) think again: Odair was born in Brazil. Jogurney (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been reading this discussion for quite some time now and it appears to me that some people are trying to say that Jordan Older is not notable because there isn't any proof that he has played in a competitive match of a fully professional league. http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 This link refers to Jordan Older, that says that the team is excited to receive him and quotes "Jordan Older is a 33-year-old American who among other things played in the Brazilian top division". I think this makes it pretty clear that he has actually played for Brazilian top division and not just trained as a reserve. Plus, there are a couple of links I have already provided which show that he has played for over 100 minutes in another fully professional league.

And here is another link, just in case. http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html --> It quotes "Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe". Any football fan or any logical mind would accept the fact that these comments can be made only if the player has played professionally in a fully professional league and not just trained as some users on this page are saying. In a nutshell, Jordan Older has played in the competitive matches of more than one fully professional league. I hope this will clear up many things. Usmanwardag (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, many players are described as having "played in [league/country]" even though they were only signed to the roster as opposed to getting any on-field time. But that's irrelevant - while he might or might not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant, third-party coverage, and that is the deal-breaker here. Giant Snowman 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any example please? Can you give me the name of a single player who was described as having played in league/country but didn't spend a single minute on field? Irrespective of that, where does WP:NFOOTBALL say that a player has to actually spend some time on the field in order to be notable. I'm baffled here. In the above comment, I provided you the links in which Older was the primary subject, and those were not just passing references. So, how do you say he hasn't received significant third party coverage? Usmanwardag (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an absence of third party, reliable sources. The General notability guideline is not satisfied. - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, lacks sufficient RS, drama magnet. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that anything has changed since the original AfD. RS do not appear to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, and the subject definitely fails WP:GNG. Sources generally are either self-promotional, are not about the subject, or only mention the subject in passing. Taroaldo ✉ 00:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?? The article clearly meets notability. I do not want to provide the evidence in every comment I make, but my above comments can be seen for this purpose. The subject does have significant third-party coverage (Already explained above). So, what's the big deal? Usmanwardag (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the NYT article I posted about Adrian Melville above? His professional soccer experience in Brazil is likely very similar to Jordan Older's. Neither appears to have ever played in a competitive match for their Brazilian clubs. I'm not convinced the USL Second Division was fully-pro back in 2003 when Older played for the San Diego Gauchos, but even so, Older only made a few appearances (just over 100 minutes in total) which according to longstanding AfD consensus is not enough without passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your comparison is seriously illogical. We can never call Adrian Melville a professional player. He started his career in 2007 and finished in 2008. So, it's logical to say that he did not get to play in a competitive match. But that you can't say about an athlete who has played for more than one fully professional league and has done it for many years. So, what you are trying to suggest is that Older got signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues, got to play in each for more than a year (for 3-4 years in some) but never got to play a single competitive match?

That aside, did any reliable and independent news source call Adrian Melville a professional who played for a fully professional league? No. But, did any reliable and independent news source call Jordan Older a professional who played for a fully professional league? Yes. I think you have got my point. My humble request to you is stop toying with these legends. They deserve a mention in history, let them get one! Usmanwardag (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out again that these players and thousands of others have less RS (references/links/proof) than my article and all of them have played at only a lower level:

I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. Btw, Taroaldo, you've already been found out because you can't view the original article my friend! And some of the new sources are just from this year. So what you say is impossible. Btw, MrOllie, there are 10 references on this page and over 200 decade old forum posts and scores of newspaper articles. Btw, Gamaliel, I agree its a drama magnet but only because you fail to read the substantial references and admit they are valid. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival. Good day my friends and I hope you have no hard feelings. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate you spend your time attacking other editors rather than reading what they are saying. I did not read the original article, but I did read the original AfD [3], where editors clearly had serious concerns about the references. A review of the references from the current article, coupled with a Google search, reveals the same concerns. Therefore, nothing has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 00:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real quality sources to establish notability. The Banner talk 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the absence of third party, reliable sources. It definitely fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hello KDS4444 . I am a crazy supporter of football and am a reader of football related articles in Wikipedia. But in this scenario, I have to oppose to your decision as I think the article should be kept.

For #Cite 01: you have mentioned that: “I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source.”

Please have a look at the following links. All of the articles below are using reference from Futebolinterior.com.br. So do you claiming that all of the articles are based on useless references? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] All the articles that are using references from Futebolinterior.com.br can be found below: [the articles]

For #Cite 02: You have claimed that Cite #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.

But if you have a look at the following articles, you can easily see that the articles are using Wikilink as reference.

[1], [2] I have just given two examples. But many examples can easily be found, so whatever you claimed is inappropriate.

For #Cite 03: The newspaper article clearly states that Mr. Jordan Older is a professional and veteran football player. So, it certainly can be used for establishing the notability of the article's current subject.

For #Cite 04: You have said Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.

First of all, I have to say that the language is Swedish, not German. I have do the translation for you. Please go to the following Link: [4]. Here, you can clearly see that Mr Jordan Older has played in the Brazilian Top Division. So, this reference can also be used.

For #Cite 05: You said Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information. Although it may not be a reliable source, it states that [Link (translated)] Jordan is a Striker as well as the name of the teams.

For #Cite 06: Jordan Older may not have received that many votes, but you can not claim that he is not notable. According to: Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2).

For #Cite 07: The citation indicates that Jordan has been a player of the team San Diego Gauchos. You have made the article nominated for deletion. But again, in accordance to Wikipedia’s rules for Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2), it is clearly stated that Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable.

For #Cite 08 and 09: These 2 citations were added to state about his present situation and what is he doing at present. Although they may not make him notable as a player, but they say what he is doing at present.

For #Cite 10: As the article is about Jordan Older and as it says that he started this film festival, this citation can be added in favor of his article.

So, after mentioning the things above, I think the article meets the criteria of Notability of Wikipedia and thus, it should be kept and not be deleted. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for readability. Once again, doesn't mean that there aren't any useful comments in here. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make a brief summary of things as I see them now. I was very upset when I spent an hour copy and pasting 200 references proving logically, in my personal opinion, the fame and notability of my subject only to have them deleted within a few minutes of posting them by a new admin who suddenly came into the discussion when we already had one admin, do we really need two admins and 20 or so editors? But, yes, that upset me. Mostly because I spent a long time researching the information and because the admin is also one of the "deleters" of my article so he's got his opinion and he's deleting evidence against it and... he also deleted another important and very short comment I made. I still don't think this is ok, but I apologize if in my astonishment of having an hour of my life trashed I may have appeared angry. Sincere apology and I hope we can all be friends. I respect everyone's right to delete and disagree with me. It's a free world. I think I have a way that we can all be happy about this and I will delete my article myself if the main detractors/deleters can come to an objective list of what is required for wp:gng and association football notability. Because I honestly am baffled how anyone can say my subject is not notable. Fans are still posting about him a decade after he retired on major soccer forums that I read around the world (dont read this as I'm saying its a viable proof of anything, its just a supporting fact to his fame and notability.)

So can the deleters make a list of what exact criteria need to be met to satisfy wp:gng and football notability and be specific? This will also be a learning opportunity for me. Like I said I will delete my article myself if I can see my own failure to understand something. This will save 20+ people from another 6 years of pointless debate maybe.

Here is what I have read in the form of a probably check list to satisfy notability: :::(✔ means it's proved in my opinion):::

✔ 1) played in a fully professional league or a national cup (reference #7 proves this according to GiantSnowman, even barely) and subject's Facebook shows another full pro USL team 1 year before the start of the MLS and that he played in the Swiss Cup in 1993 which is a national level event, I read that national cups also warrant notability.

✔ 2) GNG Checklist:

✔* 1. 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 or stand-alone list.

I see 2 recent newspaper articles that have high reputations and are tamper proof and reliable. 2 recent newspaper articles about a guy who retired over 10 years ago is notable. I also see 200 fan forum discussions about him or including him on a popular forum, and given that the subjet is in his 40's and soccer players retire at around 30, this is notable. Even if many or most are poking fun at him, its still notable. I also see on his Facebook more news paper clippings and front pages sports spreads that are only about the subject, not just mentioning him, and that he was in TV commercials from Intel, Pioneer/Phillps, Reebok, and I see blogs on 1st division A professional soccer teams in other countries talking about him along side super famous players. One of the blogs was an interview with an ex Manchester United player who was the coach of team in Sweden. The Manchester United player said that the subject "played in the top league in brazil" or similar to that. I see also that the subject is in pictures with Pele and David Beckham recently as well as with Academy Award winning celebrities at his film festival. You can see videos of him with these stars too. I'm not saying that all or any of this is a valid "reference", I'm saying that it shows "significant" coverage, given that almost no Americans played professional soccer in the 1990's and USA had no MAJOR professional league and almost no sports coverage, this is huge coverage, not just significant. It's certainly more coverage than the list of example Wikipedia articles on other soccer players in his area (see my list above for the list.) His coverage and playing level was a level higher than each of the players in this list, yet their articles remain and my subject is up for deletion and suffers being called and amateur who played a few minutes with an amateur team by the deleters. So we have here: several reptutable, reliable news sources, tv commercials, live radio interviews, hundreds of forum posts even decades after he retired poking fun at him, also many wanting to know who is Jordan Older and how did he play in Brazil when no other american could do it, he mingles with celebrities, he has his own film festival, his family is full of famous celebs, not to mention he's now an agent who is able to place local american kids in major pro teams in Germany because of his extensive professional playing career in Europe. Keep in mind there are several hall of fame americans who tried to make a team in Brazil and failed. My subject played for 3. This is more than enough to warrant notability so I give it a check.

✔* 2. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

Futebol Interior(FI) featured the subject on the front page of its popular Brazilian sports site and wrote a long article about the subject. FI is used in hundreds of other references in Wikipedia so it should be ok here too. No original research is needed (like in the forum posts which arent valid references) to "extract" the information about the subject because the entire article is about him and it was on the front page for a number of days just a few months ago when I found it. This is reference #1. PV News story is half quotes from the subject because its about his success as an agent. It's easy to extract the content about the subject from this reference. This is reference #3. I also have a radio interview of the subject on a popular radio station where he is interviewed about his playing days. Check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Ambriz -> this player's article lacks complete proof of him playing in Switzerland and he only played 4 games as well in the USL1 fully professional league and 9 games in the amateur PDL USL league (the other players on my list are just a few out of thousands with similarly less notability than my subject)

Anyway I have 2 soccer sources that require little research to read about him and many recent film festival references about him that are easy to extract the content so I say this is satisfied. Check.

✔* 3. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

My main sources are professional news agencies and all edited. Even the Sao Paulo FC blog was written by one of Brazil's top journalists with high journalistic integrity. Check.

✔* 4. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

There are plenty of these on his Facebook and in my references. Check.

✔ * 5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]

My subject is not affiliated with any of the news sources and only to the teams and blogs because he was on the team or considered for the team. None of it is paid advertising, none is self published except for the film festival web site profile which he is the director of the Ventura Film Festival, but that is just to show he is the director of the Ventura Film Festival, nothing else, and none are press releases. Check

✔ * 6. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I guess this is where its up to the admins and editors to decide. My vote is obvious since I am a huge fan of early American soccer players. They were paving the path for the players of today when no one was looking. My article is not just an indiscriminate collection of information and is very popular by the number of editors and admins discussing it. This is really up to the admins I think? I say - Check.

✔ * 7. A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

I believe there are maybe the same amout of KEEPS and DELETES, perhaps DELETES are winning now, I haven't counted. But there are several KEEPS and the original approver of the article voted to KEEP. Again I think its up to the admins here. I say - Check.

(above is copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline)

So there is my :::✔check::: list for Association Football notability and WP:GNG notability. It all basically comes down to the hard facts listed in ref#1#3#4#5#7 and the opinion of the editors and mostly the admins.

GiantSnowman already agreed that Association Football notability is met (barely) and like I said if the deleters can come up with some specific reasons why WP:GNG is not met for a popular soccer retired soccer player who runs a popular film festival (the largest film festival in Ventura County, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country, I did my research), and if the specific reasons make sense logically to me I will delete my own article (if that's possible.) I think this is fair. One the same note, if there are no specific reasons why conditions 1 through 5 (since 6 & 7 are up to the whim of the admins) aren't met then I think a gentleman would agree to step down and keep the article. I'm over my anger at my comments being deleted and don't want to spend hours each day saying the same thing for 4 more days and don't want around 20 other interested editors to waste more time so this sounds like a good solution to me? I respect everyone's right to disagree and even to delete my article or to ban/delete my account. I just hope everyone uses logic and is honest since God is watching. I hope everyone is having a great night/day and let me know your specific reasons why a nothing amateur soccer player and nobody film festival owner is not notable, guys and gals... Fussballspieler11 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that the discussion here is not a ballot, and that the number of "votes" for delete or keep is completely irrelevant. Completely. Let's think about that for a minute.... The number of times you see "Delete" or "Keep" has no bearing on anything happening here. None. This process is not a collection of votes, it is one of argument based on policy. This is a fundamental aspect of the AfD process that doesn't seem to be making it across. My stating it again here seems likely to fall on deaf ears, but hey, I'm an optimist! Wait, no, that's totally a lie... Wait, what do I mean again? Oh yeah. We aren't voting here. <Shouted into the wind> Also: my eyes hurt. KDS4444^Talk 15:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your plea is going to have no effect. Lots of people making delete comments without doing the courtesy to actually base them on logic. Someone tell them that this is a discussion, not a poll! Someone?? Usmanwardag (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning through, most of the delete !votes cite policy or guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:RS, etc.); I don't see anything atypical with them. Most of the keep !votes also focus on the merits of the article, although there have been one or two detours into the land of WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is to be avoided in deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm also placing an abritrary section break below this branch of the discussion as a courtesy to new commenters. The AfD is pushing 100k, so that's a lot of scrolling to preview an edit.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred actually the deleters and maybe even an admin first started to list "the other stuff" WP:OTHERSTUFF by saying that there are plenty of "others" deleted all the time. So why should a logical person not be able to say THE SAME reason in response; well in that case there are literally "thousands" of "other stuff" American soccer articles with less notability kept all the time, most 90% American players with Wikipedia articles can't compare to my subject's experience and news media coverage. Further, the WP:OTHERSTUFF says that, while they aren't enough on it's own, the other stuff comparison CAN BE USEFUL: (and it was started by the deleters so its only fair that both sides can use the same kind of comparison)

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article (except for a salting, which is only performed in dire cases). While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

WP:OTHERSTUFF

Also the deleters have already agreed that the subect meets notability by WP:NFOOTBALL the Admin: GiantSnowman has already gone on record agreeing to this. Some of the deleters have heavily criticized the validity of my editor reviewed references from 3rd party and well know newspapers but at the same time pulling up non-editor reviewed private/commercial web sites (that they may or may not own or run themselves) and telling everyone that we should trust these sources and if something "they want" isn't found in "their non-editor reviewed" blog that therefore they have found some smoking gun. So what you have here is a lot of circular logic and hypocrisy and simply admins deleting evidence when it doesn't suit their personal opinion. It doesn't sound terribly honest or fair. And to be the bigger man, and to avoid having to repeat the same obvious points day in and day out to people who say YOU can't do this, YOU can't use this kind of source, but I CAN, I've offered to delete my own article if the detractors will outline some specific reasons why WP:GNG is not satisfied (they already agreed that WP:NFOOTBALL is satisfied <--- I want to emphasize this). YOU can't talk about other stuff, but I CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. Really bizarre thinking and seems dishonest to me. Again I just realized last night after logging off that their WP:RS is far less worthy and reliable and is not editor reviewed newspaper so it FAILS the WP:GNG rules clearly, but the deleters are using it as one of their main reasons for lack of football notability... are you following the problem here? It's circular logic combined with hypocrisy which means they are proving themsevles wrong by their own irrational reasoning. I'm going to paste this at the bottom so that it doesn't get lost up here in the mess of things and also to your talk page, just to be sure you get it C.Fred. Since you seem to be the only objective one here. Again I think its more than fair to take me up on my offer to have me delete my own page if the deleting side can list the specific things why my article's subject is not WP:GNG. Waiting on this.... Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break One

Comment. I don't have anything to say on the merits here, because I'm not going to spend half a bloody hour wading through 80k of text before I have my coffee. But I will say this - I've seen a lot of AFDs where editors placed their faith in having equal numbers of Keep and Delete recommendations, only to find that it is not the number of !votes that count but the strength of their argument. I've also seen debates where editors pointed to other articles and drew similarities - but that's absolutely not relevant in any way, shape, or form. This article has to stand on its own merits, its own references, its own notability. Does it? At first glance, no. But I'll look at the refs and make my own judgement later today or tomorrow. For now - guys, calm down. If you need 1800 words to make your point, you're doing it wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not sufficient RS. And I actually just spent 20 minutes wading through the Afd and the sources provided, but still fail to see GNG fulfilled. Just a note to Fussballspieler11: your very vocal defense of the article, and your tendency to comment on almost every vote here does the article a disservice; this added to your sulky mood, and your declared feeling of being attacked by a experienced editors just makes this worse. Please assume good faith and even the assumption of good faith. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: Yeah, that baffles me, too. What's the big deal that you have to write more than 18k of text? That usually happens when you are trying to defend the undefendable! Imagine someone saying on this thread that an athlete who has been signed by more than one fully professional league and played for each for more than a year always remained a reserve player? Many of the comments are just based on speculation like the article might fail GNG, might not have sufficIent RS, might not have third party coverage, subject might not have played in a competitive match, and the like. I don't understand the host of controversies here. The facts are: 1- Older has played for more than one fully professional league and played in a competitive match (Cite #3,4,5,6 verify that), 2- He has been mentioned by a number of third party sources and they are not just passing references (Cite #1,3,4,5 verify that). Hence, the article meets both the criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong! Usmanwardag (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Therein lies the problem. We have lots of newspaper articles saying he's played in Brasil top division, but a database of Brasilian football doesn't have his name listed and we can't find any records of him playing in an actual game. We have proof that he was in the lineup for 4 USL-2 games (playing in at least two of them). He claims to have played in European leagues, but the only transfer list (which would have his signing) only shows a transfer between two US indoor teams, neither of which were playing that season. It seems like, at best, he was a trialist for various teams, but never actually signed. At best, the article could be a keep with an extremely lean rewrite (only showing he played in USL-2), but I doubt that alone would meet WP:GNG.LionMans Account (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's in-depth assessment of the sources. For what it's worth, the bizarre behaviour of the 'keep' side of this AFD, including huge walls of text, multiple bolded "KEEP" votes, and even a spurious complaint at ANI, are rarely a sign of a good-faith attempt at an article and certainly haven't helped its case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the nominator's assessment of the sources "in-depth." His evaluation of at least one of them was so cursory that he didn't even notice what language it was in - he said German, but I speak German and that article is all Greek to me. Actually Norwegian, but you get my point.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please concentrate on the discussion, and not on the behavior of the 'keep' side of the AFD. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmanwardag (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go. I looked at the sources, one by one, and will discuss them below. I see the concerns from the nominator, and the initial responses, but I've skipped most of the discussion in favor of taking a fresh look. So some of these points have likely been mentioned above, and if so - oh well.

Ref 1 - There's no author mentioned, and the article has the feel of a press release. The site does not appear to have the sort of editorial control or responsibility that is typical of reliable sources. I'm not impressed.

Ref 2 - Ref 2 is a Wikipedia article, and thus is not suitable as a reference. At all.

Ref 3 - This ref is a local news article discussing a 19-year-old prospect signed with a club in Germany. Older is mentioned and quoted, but the focus of the article is on the prospect.

Ref 4 - This ref is a match report for a game in which Older did not play - and, indeed, seems to predate his time with the club. A club official mentions that Older was signed, but this source isn't about Older at all. It does not confirm that he played in a professional game with anyone - and predates his time with this club, so doesn't confirm that he played any minutes with them, either. We also have another ref from the same source (here) that shows Older not making the team.

Ref 5 - This ref purports to be a team's official blog. I ignore, for the moment, the fact that we do not use blogs as sources generally. The ref is used to confirm that he had been invited to play for two other teams - São Paulo FC and Fluminense - but this comes from a quote from Older himself saying that he had been invited to play for those teams. At best, this ref confirms that Older asked a team in São Paulo for a workout, and was declined.

Ref 6 - Ref 6 shows that Older received at least two write-in votes in a fan poll. The poll asked fans to set the roster for the US Team for the 1998 World Cup. The article states that Older "...was voted to the fans selection of the 1998 USA World Cup Roster in an Internet poll..." and that's not precisely true. This doesn't serve a claim of notability, because all it confirms is that at least two people put his name in the voting (since people who got only one vote were excluded from the list). That's it.

Ref 7 - OK, here he's listed playing 12 minutes in relief for the San Diego Gauchos. A roster from that year shows that Older played 117 minutes over the course of 4 matches, taking one shot and committing one foul. See here. Does this team (and that league) meet the standards we require for top-tier professional clubs?

Ref 8 - This confirms Older's involvement in the film festival. Good as far as it goes, but does nothing for notability in and of itself. The notability here would come from the festival itself. So - is the Ventura Film Festival notable? Would its founder also be notable as a result, just for that involvement?

Ref 9 - This ref does not mention Older at all, in any capacity. It mentions the film festival, briefly - but that speaks to the festival, not to its founder. At best, it would be placed at Ventura Film Festival.

Ref 10 - Again, this is a news source that confirms that Older founded the festival. It does not discuss Older in any depth.

Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see the case for notability from these references. As far as football is concerned, the only thing we can confirm is that he played 4 games for the Gauchos. I can find no similar records for the other teams listed - match reports, rosters, etc - to confirm time in top tier Brazilian leagues. I'll see if something else came up in the discussion above, but I'm inclined to recommend Delete here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse more. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UltraExactZZ, thanks for joining the discussion:

YOU SAID: Ref 1 - There's no author mentioned, and the article has the feel of a press release. The site does not appear to have the sort of editorial control or responsibility that is typical of reliable sources. I'm not impressed.

Ref #1 source (Futebol Interior) is used over 500 times already in Wikipedia, Alexa ranks it as authoritative top 900 sites in all of Brazil and top 19,000 in the world, I have been reading it for around 10 years, it's used by others to do research as well. Your statements simply don't match the WP:GNG requirements, but trying to quote invalid sources as your primary reason/argument. And the WP:NFOOTBALL notability has already been agreed to by football expert and Wikipedia admin GiantSnowman.

Please stick to using only editor reviewed publications like my main news sources in ref 1 and 3. They prove notability without a shadow of doubt, along with #7 and the others tell the true story. Simply looking someone up in a non valid, non-editorial reviewed private/commercial or hobby web site means nothing and fails the same rules you are trying to prove that my sources fail. You are contradicting yourself here. And people are still misrepresenting the facts still denying the number of fully professional games in the United states USL Pro league my subject played when its proven time and time again that he played 4 in the USL Pro league in 2003. He likely did this just for fun because he was around 35 at the time, but its been proven time and time again in this discussion and people are still trying to minimize my subject's reputation by ignoring this. Proof:

Wikipedia admin: GiantSnowman already agreed he meets WP:NFOOTBALL but says he lacks WP:GNG but fails to be specific and uses his own logic to weaken his argument to delete by quoting non-editorial reviewed publications and personal blog sites as his (and the other deleters) main proof. Thanks again guys. I'm new here and learing the rules of WP:GNG very well by now and they state you can't use non-editoria reviewed publications to establish notability like the deleters are attempting. Please stick to the Wikipedia rules. Even admins and editors have to follow the rules.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned reference 1 - the Futebol Interior source. Who wrote the article? Who generally writes their articles? Who is on their editorial staff? I'm not familiar with the site and don't find their alexa ranking to be particularly relevant. All I see is that it seems to be a news article but includes unrelated biographical information at the end, in much the same way that the typical press release does. That is what drew the comparison. And ref 3 is an article about someone else. It does mention the subject - and even quotes him - but it's not about him, it's about this other kid who signed with a team in Germany. It confirms that Mr. Older exists, which is nice, and that he is involved in the sports management industry, but it doesn't confer notability. It is not significant coverage, because it doesn't cover Mr. Older. As for the games played in 2003 - I acknowledged that he played four games in 2003. Is that sufficient? I dunno, but I also left the question open. I'd sure love to see similar sources documenting games played for clubs in Brazil. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I have a lot of respect for GiantSnowman, he's not the boss of me. It is possible that we disagree on this point, and on the fate of this article (though I see him recommending Delete, above). Nor does it matter that he is an admin - that doesn't make his opinion more worthy. I've known loads of admins, most of them are idiots. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz:, I'm not sure whether to be offended or not :P Giant Snowman 19:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

As one admin to another, my snark may have gotten the best of me. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

------> @ User_talk:Ultraexactzz

You're contradicting yourself by:

1) trying to label an editor reviewed news reference as invalid while using non-editor reviewed sources to claim reason to delete, Spock from Star Treck would easily find the flaw in your logic.

2) trying to say because youve never heard of ref#1 it's, therefore it must be invalid, so what? you don't need to know it, its editor reviewed and already used over 500 times as valid referenes in Wikipedia

3) saying there are no editors on that site just shows you didn't even read it, they are listed all over it, you are hence saying the source is invalid but you didnt even read it

4) saying As for the games played in 2003 - I acknowledged that he played four games in 2003. Is that sufficient? I dunno, but I also left the question open. GiantSnowman already said he's satisfied WP:NFOOTBALL

5) asking for other sources supporting that he played in Brazil, there are other at least 3 other sources listed in the references of this, and at least one of them is a valid editor reviewed newspaper, and there are a ton of pictures of him doing his thing and other news articles from the time before the Internet on his Facebook page (I did my research).

6) basically your whole reasoning is flawed and illogical and full of contradictions, but I respect your right to delete. I even said I would delete if you anyone give specific reason why WP:GNG isnt met. I'm still waiting a day later. People just keep saying I dont know what Futebol Interior is so I don't accept that source so its reall just your opinion and not based on the WP:GNG rules themselves. Thanks for your time. You do appear to be at least pretending to be unbiased by calling admins idiots.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add a little note here. Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). I hope I made the things clear here. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone

I'm not trying to be rude here. But maybe if you read what's been said again by GiantSnowman, you'll see some of the errors in your reasoning and your attempted use of invalid sources according to Wikipedia and circular logic (banning me from using editor reviewed news source while using other non-editor reviewed private blogs yourself, banning me from talking about other stuff while talking about other stuff frequently yourselves)

GiantSnowman's WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments

Ha, you clearly are not a member of WP:FOOTBALL then, as I am - if you were, you would see a high turnover of non-notable articles getting deleted (not that that has any impact whatsoever on this discussion). What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! GiantSnowman 12:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, WP:NFOOTBALL is actually subservient to WP:GNG; passing the former gives you assumed notability that you pass the latter, as opposed to actual notability. There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL but clearly failing GNG does not make you notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination). GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GitantSnowman's use of non-editorial reviewed private blog/web sites for main his main arguments to refute my subjects notability while at the same time many try to say that I can't official league match rosters and statistics and editor reviewed AND WELL RESPECTED news publications tha already appear over 500 times as valid references on Wikipedia

'Comment' Claims like mr X played in the Brazilian Serie A can easily be verified/falsified using a database like this one [2]. As you can see it goes back a very long time before there was such a thing as internet. Cattivi (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No results. GiantSnowman 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman deleting two of my comments that I feel are valid to supporting, if not proving, WP:GNG

@Fussballspieler11:, yes, I removed this wall of text (including copyrighted information!) as it was disruptive. Most of your posts here have been similar (though not quite as extreme) and if you don't start contributing calmly, concisely, and without displaying OWNership issues then I will ask an uninvolved admin to intervene here. GiantSnowman 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: ----------> There already is another uninvolved admin here, you're the 2nd admin here GiantSnowman, btw

GiantSnowman admits subjects passes WP:NFOOTBALL

"There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL" - User: GiantSnowman

GiantSnowman saying that its strange for editors to be supporting KEEP of my article but the deleters are normal? Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased?

What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! - GiantSnowman

Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased?

I think GiantSnowman and the editor who came back after 6 years and 10 new references is strange. And how the article was labeled a hoax within minutes of it being created by me means someone was watching it 24/7 no other way to so quickly define a hoax (hoax was denied by C.Fred) Strange is how multiple deleters use the same language to minimize the repuation of my subject by calling him "amateur" and only played a "few minutes" when all the teams listed on his resume are fully professional. Strange is how GiantSnowman argues not passing WP:GNG but then censors and deletes my comments hinting at proof that he is very famous. Strange is the anonymous KEEP vote that came in on this talk page and then GiantSnowman later makes claims of "stranger ... is editors coming out of nowhere" - GiantSnowman

Strange is how someone who is not notable can have such attention to his Wikipedia page that over 20 editors and 2 admins have spent 3 days now and thousands of lines of text trying to prove its notability. (self contradicting reality again.)

Once again, I've already called foul play because of:

1) its strange that my article was immediate vandalized with a fake hoax delettion attempt minutes after I wrote it, meaning that someone was following it with a search script or hitting refresh every 60 seconds or so 24/7 7 days a week, its not possible to decide if its a hoax with 10 new references and a totally new article (and to find the article) that quickly 2) its strange that the article was deleted 6 years ago at the same time as a business conflict the subject had about a hostile take over of his film festival 3) its strange that the fact that the same deleter from 6 years ago badly muffed his critique of the new article just giving a blanket critisicm and clearly not really reading the new references 4) its strange that the fact that some deleters claimed that they read the old article and its references when the old article is not available on Wikipedia anymore 5) its strange that i was trying to write the article without a username and the same user kept denying it and then deleted his own talk page to hide my communications with him and then my subjects original article was zapped clean from wikipedia forever, so i created a username for the first time resulting in the article being approved and a KEEP vote from the original approver 6) its strange that editors went as far to have to have their comments striked out by C.Fred, they risked their reputations by bordering on poking fun and minimizing my subjects career 7) its strange several deleters use the same words "a few minutes" and "amateur", I'm not saying it was the same user with two accounts or more but it seems like there is a team working here and I have read about the existance of Wiki-gangs (look it up yourself if you dont know what that is) now dont put words in my mouth, i'm not saying this is true, just saying its strange to me 8) its strange to me that GiantSnowman is now calling for a "2nd admin" (perhaps his friend) when he is the "2nd admin" we already had C.Fred (not acusing anyone of doing this, but its strange)

Anyway these things seem suspicious to me and I will gladly delete my own article if you can show me how the scores of editor reviewed news publications (already used over 500 times on Wikipedia), starring in national and International TV commericals for Intel Pentium, Snickers, Pioneer/Phillips, Reebok, fan votes to the World Cup roster, owning his own international film festival, giving awards to Academy Award winners, personal friends with Pele and David Beckham, able to place local American kids on major German professional soccer teams as an agent, having played in 3 continents and around 7 different countries, and a huge delete discussion on Wikipedia is not notable. As a fan of early American soccer players it really just baffles my mind the opposition here.

Thanks again and I respect your right to delete my article and expect you to give me the same rights you have. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ everyone

Note: I just re-read WP:GNG it doesnt say that WP:NFOOTBALL is subservient to WP:GNG like GiantSnowman claimed. This is clearly his own opinion and not a fact.

WP:GNG clearly states and I quote:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. "

The "also presumed notable" means that someone can be notable by a different set of rules, it doesn't say you have to follow the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It says someone can be notable just by the Notability

Subject-specific guidelines which everyone agrees passes by means of WP:NFOOTBALL.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fussballspieler11, I respectfully ask you to actually read WP:NFOOTBALL (y'know, the guideline you have been banging on about for the past 2 days?), because it quite clearly says "Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable [...] players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". I have already provided links to maybe a dozen AFDs that show community consensus which states GNG is more important than NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. It clearly says you are wrong here. Please read the words "players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or"

1st the "or" means that its one OR the other, not both are need - either WP:GNG "or" WP:NFOOTBALL are you trying to mislead me or you just can't graps the concept and meaning of the word "or"? I'm seriously concerned at your lack of ability to understand 8th grade level logic.

2nd you're, again, using the WP:SOMEOTHERSTUFF argument here, it's not valid... just because you made a mistake on dozens of other Afd doesn't mean I'm going to sit around while you 1) delete multiple comments I've made 2) ignore truths about the meaning of Wikipedia rules!

Let me say it again... ————→ OR ←——— means one or the other, its exclusive, hence:

1) soccer players who haven't appeared in a full professional leauge can be considered notable if(or) they have enough press coverage

2) soccer players who have no features written about them they can be considered notable if they have played in a full professional league

3) none of this should matter because my subject satisfies both NGN and NFOOTBALL since he's a really relatively famous guy in several countries and has multiple features JUST ABOUT HIM playing professional soccer, some are too old to appear in Internet searches and in your hobby blogs that you claim are proof worthy.

This is amazing how a Wikipedia amin can't understand the meaning of the word "or". Mind boggling and please do not let your lack of reading comprehension affect me adversely and the reputation of my subject. You're CLEARLY wrong here and I have already made one complaint and this is worth of another. Although I respect your right to disagree, I can't see how you are right here. I am not angry but I feel strongly that you are doing me and my subject a dis-service as well as misleading other editors and wheover else might read this.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

@ GiantSnowman

Here's another example. The WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL says you can satisfy the list OR you can have played in a full professional league. This is like telling a child at dinner that you must eat your vetatables or your fruits before you can have your desert. So the child, in order to get desert, must eat one OR the other (or both.) So the child can do one of 3 things to get desert:

1) eat the fruits (NFOOTBALL)
2) eat the vegetables (GNG)
3) eat both fruits and vegetables (GNG and NFOOTBALL)

I hope this makes it crystal clear.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's amazing is that someone who has been here for only 3 days truly believes they know more than a number of experienced, truested editors (myself included!). I'm not sure if you're stubborn or deluded but you need to start listening, something you have not done once in your brief time here. You've been told to stop with snide comments about other editors - you continue. You've been told you don't OWN the article - you continue to claim it as your own. You've been told not to post walls of texts - you continue. Your edits are becoming increasingly annoying and many editors are fast losing patience with you. Stop patronising me and others, because I am so very close to losing it with you, which won't be good for either of us. Giant Snowman 21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what can I do now about a certain someone without getting banned? I feel a certain someone misrepresented the Wikipedia rules more than once on purpose in order to mislead me and other voting editors. I call foul play. Had I not read them myself I wouldn't have realized this because I assumed a certain someone was correct in a certain someone's interpretation of them. I can read. So now what? I don't want to break and rules but a certain someone threatened to ban me if I talk bout a certain someone? I would like to file another complaint about a certain someone but I fear a certain someone will ban me. I fear writing this asking for a certain someone to let me know what I am allowed to do will get me banned at this point. I guess if a certain someone did that it would just be a certain someone's way of winning and deleteing my article and would prove my point about a certain someone even more.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL by having played a few minutes in USL2, which is listed at WP:FPL. That is a presumption of notability. However, that does not mean he is guaranteed an article. I haven't yet seen evidence of enough reliable non-trivial independent coverage to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Struway2 I realize that everything is a consensus on Wikipedia, but do you realize that it's not required to have both NFOOTBALL and GNG? And please refrain from using diminuative exaggerations in describing my subject to minimize his reputation. He played more than a few minutes and you are just mimicing the others. Show some respect please.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Fussballspieler11 has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" before quickly changing it to "my subject - a very telling slip-up. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that, I'm at work emailing customers so I made a typo. Have you ever typed a word so many times that you type it on accident when you don't mean it? I have not been paid to write this article pr hired in any way by my subject. I am simply a fan. I'm not allowed to mention the person above because he threatened to ban me if I did it so I'm not sure what I can do. He lied, I caught him, he threatened to ban me. Nice system we have here. I made a typo I'll admit that but the subject is not my customer. And even if he was, there is nothing wrong with hiring a Wikipedia author to write your article. It's done everyday. But I repeat, I have not been hired by my subject.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I lied? Either provide evidence or strike your unfounded accusation (yet another infraction we can add to a slowly ever-growing list). Giant Snowman 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And from day one I was upfront with C.Fred (admin) about being a fan who was in touch with the subject on his Facebook page to get the photo for the article. You guys should check out his Facebook to see other proofs of the claims in the article that might not be valid references because they are newspapers from Switzerland outlining the Swiss Cup that Jordan Older played in in 1993 (which also qualifies as notable under sports because its a nation wide cup competition.)Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding as to what "presumed" means. I looked it up:

presumed past participle, past tense of pre·sume (Verb)
Verb
Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability: "I presumed that the man had been escorted from the building".
Take for granted that something exists or is the case.

The user above said that NFOOTBALL notability was satisfied but it was only presumed. This means that it's taken for granted, not that its some kind of reason to doubt.

So the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL clearly state that notability is presumed.... Meaning:

If the subject played in a full professional league he is presumed(taken for granted) that the subject is notable even in the absence of GNG.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dude. The best thing you can do right now, for this article, for yourself, for your future as an editor of Wikipedia, is to not say another word. Everything you want to say you have said. A hundred times. We have heard you. Saying it louder or more often is not going to benefit this article. You have been accusatory, defensive, and suspicious since the moment you arrived in this discussion. Honestly, I can't even hear you anymore. All I hear is a painful repetitive noise. This is not a playground, and we are not children. I am just so tired of even knowing that you wrote anything new here. You are done. Trust me. Whether the article is kept or deleted, you are so very, very done contributing to this discussion. I say that as advice: I have no power to enforce a cease and desist order. If I did, well... No matter. Please: you are done. I invite you to leave this conversation not because you do not have a stake in its outcome, but because you have been deeply uncivil, and your continued contributions are only reiterations of things you have already said, with a pointed finger and a cracking voice and my ears hurt so much I think they are bleeding now. Please, oh zen master. Please stop the insanity. We've heard you. You don't hear back much. KDS4444^Talk 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 I have nothing against you but you can't even get your facts straight and you were the one who started this Afd in the first place. People are lying here and so obviously that it's funny. A certain admin tryed to trick me and everyone else about an hour ago into believing that GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL when it clearly doesn't. If you believe that then you are flat out wrong too. I don't care if you don't like it or whatever. This is not about you. This is about the facts and the rules of Wikipedia. Of course you want me to leave because I just found someone out. I have not been uncivil. I respect everyone's right to disagree. I even apologized to a certain someone and then he lied to me flat out. I will not stand by why abuse of power goes on, its wrong and you seem to support it or at least ignore it. And who cares if you can't read my comments, your comments from the start, where you misread things, called Swedish German, so on and so on have been slammed into the trash can long ago by a few editors, so don't think that everyone wants to hear you either. I respect your right to disagree, but please show me the same respect that you want and also show some repsect for my subject by not using diminuative words to describe him and his career.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back at ANI. Giant Snowman 22:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Section Break Two: The Return

Fussballspieler11 has been blocked by Admin Bwilkins for the duration of this AFD. I, for one, am going to have a cup of tea and take a deep breath now. I'm still not convinced that Reference 1 is sufficient to show notability, especially if it is the only such reference (the others being unsuitable, as I noted). But if that site is a reliable source, we can leave it. If there were other questions or concerns that I'm missing in the above discussion, please bring'em up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost hear myself think again. It's rather nice. And tea helps, too. And breathing. Ahhhhh. Now then: despite the accusations of dishonesty and deception of which I have been accused (oh, what will the tabloids say tomorrow??), I really have just completed a second as-super-thorough-as-I-know-how search on futebolinterior.com.br looking for information about the web site to get SOME sense of its status as a reliable source, and while I do not speak Portuguese (or German, or Swedish, or Norwegian, or even Finish!) I can say with some confidence that what I keep finding again and again is't helpful. It shows up a billion times on a google search of the term, but half a billion of these results are, as I have said, statements of its monetary value and number of visitors. I just can't find anything about editorial oversight (supervisão editorial) or an editorial board (conselho editorial... Hmmmm.... Maybe I do speak português!) and I do not think that anyone in any amount of time is going to identify the human author of citation #1. If they do, I will eat my hat. And I have a really nice hat that I so don't want to eat right now! KDS4444^Talk 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). It's very much like professional sports websites who don't give credits of news to a particular author. But, if you check their blog, they have authors and very experienced ones. I hope I made the things clear here! Usmanwardag (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sites I'm familiar with - few though they may be - credit their writers, and that's generally a fact that bolsters a site's reliability. Perhaps, as you say, it is a cultural thing. But I can't show who wrote the source at issue here, and that caused me to question its provenance. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper Does that article have any author? No. Why? Because it's simply news. In blogs, they (Futebol Interior) do give credits to their authors and they have editorial staff of their own. Usmanwardag (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On several points. First, the sources in the article are deeply flawed, per the nominator and others. Second, the statement at WP:NFOOTBALL says anyone who appeared in a fully professional league is generally considered notable. In short, it's not guaranteed. And given how big soccer is in Brazil and South America, if this person really did play in Brazil's top division, finding sources shouldn't be this tough. Bluntly, this person fails WP:GNG, and that for me puts him on the wrong side of "generally". Third, someone noted above that this player does not appear on any transfer list. Almost immediately, a new user comes up with a site that is user generated that shows one transfer - between small time local teams in San Diego, but nothing that indicates the article subject played any of the top teams claimed. Seriously, the article claims this guy played in some pretty big leagues, but SPAs in this AFD are trying to pin notability on low-level PDL appearances? Obvious red ~~flag~~ card. Fourth, it is claimed this person took part in training camp for the American World Cup team in 1994. Again, if true, reliable sources should have been easily obtained. Fifth, it is fishy that stories that do mention Older tend to be user-submitted. Example: [4]. Sixth, we have a professional soccer player who is also a physician who also runs a Film Festival of indeterminate importance who is also an actor (who was "featured" in some pretty big movies, yet has no IMDB profile [yet]). I'm left wondering if we will see stories tomorrow about how he is also a former astronaut who became a member of Seal Team Six. All in all, this just looks to me like a whole lot of fiction and puffery. And based on the first reply on this thread, may have been ongoing for some time. Reso lute 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a long standing consensus that individuals who might pass WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively fail WP:GNG will often be considered to not meet inclusion criteria and there are a string of recent examples of AFDs that have overwhelmingly concluded as much. Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a dead horse so comprehensively flogged. Stalwart111 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Paid-editing-prompted drama.

But he has a super cute "Gotcha!" profile picture on facebook! Surely that counts! (I will shuddup now... probably). KDS4444^Talk 01:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, that made me laugh. Stalwart111 02:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan of Jordan Older (& American football), I take serious offence on your jokes about him. Usmanwardag (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter - he removed said photo of himself so nobody will be able to share our humour anyway. Stalwart111 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if you are operating a fake facebook account, or UserKDS4444, or someone else (it's not an accusation!) but you have got to be respectful, because 1- This is supposed to be a civilized discussion and so anybody should not make fun of and/or ridicule anybody else, and 2- I believe he deserves respect being a football player. Making these jokes or ridiculing him won't help your cause. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? A facebook page exists for an obscure, non-notable football player filled with childhood photos and photos of his family members and having existed for years it is altered within seconds of being mentioned here and your suggestion is that one of us has spent years and years cultivating a fake facebook page for a guy we've never heard of just so we can do something strange with it during a deletion discussion for an article that should never have been created? One that was militantly defended by a guy with an obvious conflict of interest who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy right up until the point he got blocked? That has to be about the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Go and take a big deep breath and find something else to edit for a while. We're ridiculing this ridiculous campaign because it is ridiculous. And you just took things to new heights of ridiculousness. Stalwart111 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, and I found the missing newspaper articles from newspapers printed "before the time of the Internet" and therefore not available to the public! They can be found on his Facebook page right here. Let me see... Looks like four of them are from the Ventura County Star-Free Press, which is a ... very... local newspaper. One of them is from the L.A. Times! It doesn't mention Older by name, I know, but he is apparently in the picture that goes with the article. I am pretty sure that's him. On the far right. Okay, moving on, so, two of the remaining "articles" are scanned copies of his 1990 high school soccer all-star games flyer-thingy. He is mentioned in one of these two articles as playing for a team there, so those are good. And the last one— wait for it— is the SWISS article! Published in Switzerland and written in SWISS! (I know, because I speak Swiss! But not German or Norweigan or Sweedish). According to the caption it says something about the Swiss Cup. I can't read any of the text because it is too blurry, but I am pretty sure that the words "Jordan Older" are in there in that paragraph somewhere, on the right side. Possibly. I guess my Swiss is a little rusty. Well, if that doesn't prove notability then I don't know what does. Any takers?? (oh, that poor dead horse... I like horses!). KDS4444^Talk 02:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it, don't you hate it when you mention something, and you make a link to it, and then minutes later the link is no longer available? Well, that's what happened. No longer available. It was available when I made the link. I swear. Hm. I guess someone with access to Jordan Older's Facebook page made them unavailable. I guess someone with access to his page who is also feverishly checking up on this AfD discussion made them unavailable. I had just found several more good articles from the Ventura County Star I was [not] going to mention, too. But they were never published on the Internet, and now you can't see them anywhere at all, I guess. Shoot. I tried. Stupid horses. KDS4444^Talk 03:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sound a little crazy, don't you? Are you sure all the pictures you posted are not copyrighted?? I have a little knowledge of languages too and you know what, SWISS is GERMAN. If you can read SWISS, you can read GERMAN too. I found some serious errors in your very first nomination as well where you mistook German for Norwegian! Not sure what to say, but it seems like you're just making up comments. Usmanwardag (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? Where's the copyright? The guy posted photos to his own Facebook page, KDS linked to that Facebook page (they were there; I saw them too) and within minutes they were taken down by someone. Copyright is irrelevant. Far more likely is that what was there constituted his "scrapbook" with all of his media mentions, none of which allow him to pass WP:GNG here. Realising that such compendium would hurt the already-weak arguments of the keep crowd here, they were removed. AFD regulars have seen things like this a million times before. Old tactics are old. Stalwart111 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's a very subjective view, I must say. I am seriously unable to figure out how a guy who cannot even distinguish between languages, nominated the page for discussion. Please have a look at delete side of the discussion more objectively and you'll find tons of baseless rumours. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: This is Facebook for you. If I come up with thousand images proving notability of the subject, they won't be reliable, because anyone can make and post these. They can even be photoshopped. So, why did you, in the first instance, just give the link of that pic? That's beyond me! Usmanwardag (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I didn't link to Facebook, KDS did, and he did so to highlight the fact that the subject has collected press coverage about himself and none of what he had collected allowed him to meet WP:GNG. He also highlighted the fact that the subject was watching this discussion so intently that when his images were mentioned, they were immidiately removed. KDS's ability with multiple languages has exactly zero to do with his nomination of pages for deletion. You're clutching at straws now, mate. High time you dropped the stick (or at least the torch you're carrying for this subject) lest you join your mate in the dressing rooms. Stalwart111 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I wouldn't write walls of text on this but would say this is illogical. Absolutely illogical to base your conclusions on a facebook picture which has no real identity, and which might be fake. Whoever started this is just trying to digress from the main issue and trying to reach immature conclusions. So, please let's stop it and let's talk about what actually matters.

And regarding translation issue, this has got to do with his nomination. Apparently he was interpreting all the text, but didn't have any idea about the languages. On a slightly different note, I wonder why are you so much interested in clearing the things for KDS. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did you read my original comment at all? I said nothing about Facebook and I certainly didn't "base my conclusions" on a joke that was made after my conclusions. And the only thing I'm "clearing" is your misunderstanding of the conversation thus far. You're just talking yourself in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. You remain the only unblocked keep voter here and this is a waste of time. I'm done. Stalwart111 11:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 and Stalwart111 it's against Wikipedia guidelines of privacy and safety (to prevent identity theft and stalking) to talk about subject matter that is not related, such as childhood photos on Facebook. This is clearly not related and you are just gossiping (also prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines) so I would like to call light to these transgressions, just for the record. This has been a highly irregular bashing of this poor man. Usmanwardag (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Seriously. Stalwart111 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: KDS4444 linked to a copyrighted and non-soccer picture, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state this is against the policy of Wikipedia, and then you Stalwart111 said "A facebook page exists for an obscure, non-notable football player filled with childhood photos and photos of his family members" this is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines and is also irrelevant to the discussion and not related to his soccer career, there were soccer photos marked as free copyright but KDS4444 linked to the one of them. Clearly bashing and poking fun and invading his privacy. Usmanwardag (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. How is linking to copyright content "against the policy of Wikipedia". Almost every reference in Wikipedia is a "link to copyright content". You really have lost the plot haven't you? Stalwart111 10:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Summary to Closing Admin

1- Subject meets WP:FOOTBALL based on the fact that he was signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues. He remained with those fully professional clubs for more than a year each. If we just discuss on the basis of probability (as many people on this page are doing), it is highly probable that he would have got a chance to play in a competitive match. That said, there are a number of references that clearly provide that Older played in fully pro Brazilian clubs. I can't recall any player who was described as having played professionally by third party independent sources but nevertheless did not play a single competitive match. Finally, the fact that he was a little less famous than his colleagues and that Internet was just starting then, might have resulted in him not being listed. Please note popularity and notability are two different things and should not be mixed.

2- Subject meets WP:GNG because he has been described as a fully pro player by 3-4 independent and reliable third party news sources and those are not just passing references. I have already explained in detail that Cite #1 is valid because Futebol interior has an editorial staff of its own (Please read the discussion above).

Based on these, I strongly believe that Jordan Older deserve a mention in history, and should be given one. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoing! My joke about the whole speaking Swiss-thing just blew past you, didn't it. You know that SOME Swiss is actually what they call Rätoromanisch, of course... in German. That is what I must have meant by "Swiss" (... no, wait, that isn't what I meant at all by "Swiss"... Because the thing is that German... Swiss... Swedish is a Germanic... Rätoro... You still don't... Never mind, Dude. It's okay. Sie verstehen mich nicht mehr, als ich Sie verstehen, und das ist, ein Teil des Problems zwischen uns zu sein scheint. Ist jetzt alles klar??). When you can produce an actual name to go along with cite #1 ("Interior Football Agency" is not a name) Ich werde meinen Hut wieder essen. I see that they also borrowed a picture of Older from his Facebook page for the article in Futebolinterior. Good thing Older had released the copyright on his Facebook page for that picture in advance. Glück, I'd say. Sind wir fertig? KDS4444^Talk 07:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Usmanwardag: a qucik note, your comment "Subject meets WP:FOOTBALL based on the fact that he was signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues" is factually incorrect, you have to actually play in the leagues to be considered notable - it clearly says "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." Giant Snowman 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: a quick reply: it is highly unrealistic to assume that 1) the player who has signed for 3-4 fully professional clubs and stayed there for more than a year, and 2) who has been mentioned by absolutely independent third party sources to have played for those fully professional clubs, did not ever get to play a single minute in a competitive match. Let not the the fact that he was not that famous mix with the fact that he was notable. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if he played for them in a competitive first-team game then why are there are no reliable sources confirming it? There are plenty of comprehensive online football databases, especially for a nation like Brazil where football is so important. There are numerous cases where a player has been signed to a professional club for a long time but hardly (or never) played. Steve Harper took 5 years to make his debut for Newcastle United, and only played an average of 10 games a season for them over a 20 year career. Giant Snowman 10:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Usmanwardag, my suggestion would be to show sources that document games played in other leagues. A player who can be shown to have played in multiple fully professional leagues has a much better case for notability than one who can only be confirmed to have played in one such league (as is the case here). And, an aside, please stop questioning the motivations of other editors. I can't speak for them, but my recommendation is based almost solely on the dearth of proper sourcing for this subject. The facebook shenanigans and the drama on this page, I discount. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You might want to see this http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html, he played in a match of a fully professional league, still any doubts?? Usmanwardag (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant when he fails WP:GNG so comprehensively - as everyone apart from you concluded long ago! Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to reiterate but please read my above comment. There are at least 4 citations that are absolutely about the subject and 7 others with passing mentions about the subject (See the citations of the original article and my first reply to User KDS4444). If that's not notability, then what is? Please explain.

I want to reply to one of the earlier comments of User KDS4444 in which he said that Futebol Interior doesn't have any author. It has and that's Futebol Interior Agency. Now, someone will come and correct me that it can't be called an author. So, here's a link for your reference http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper That article doesn't have any author? Why? Because it's simply news. In blogs, they (Futebol Interior) do give credits to their authors and they have editorial staff of their own. I think you have got my point. And one final note to Giant Snowman: you said that everyone apart from me concluded long ago that this article fails WP:GNG. So, just to remind, here are the editors who voted keep.

-@Buffbills7701: -@Eragon.raju: -@FergusM1970: -@Fussballspieler11: -@Sourov0000:

Thanks! Usmanwardag (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:NOTAVOTE. 2) Fussballspieler11 has been blocked so saying he's on your side isn't the best tactic. 3) Seriously, just flipping listen for once! Giant Snowman 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- Absolutely agreed. Was just showing you that everything has not been concluded as you said. 2- Yeah, that's a good point about the blocked user, probably he was spoiling the discussion by posting walls and walls of text, but anyway. 3- I'm listening mate, but there are 10 citations. 10! Not a small quantity. 4 are absolutely about the subject. To be notable, how many do you require? Please explain. Perhaps you can better guide me about it. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how many sources there are - a non-notable person could have 100 references, a notable person could have 3. It's to do with the quality of the source, and how significant their coverage of the subject is. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what sort of source would satisfy you? Personally I think this article is just above the bar for notability; there's clear evidence that he has played in a fully professional league, even if it was only a US one. Obviously you don't think that is a legitimate source, so what would be?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are both showing a basic failure to understand GNG. We are not doubting that he played some minutes in a lowly US league. We are doubting that he has not received significant coverage in reliable third, party sources i.e. something that covers him in great detail, not just passing mentions. Giant Snowman 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one whole article in Futebol Interior about him. As KDS4444 can tell you it's written in Brazilian, but anyone who speaks Portuguese should be able to read it too.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- He did not play in a lowly US league; he played in a fully professional USL soccer league, listed as fully professional by Wikipedia. 2- (i) full article on Futebol Interior (already proved that it's reliable (http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol), (ii), If you look closely, the article mentions Older a lot of times and is certainly credible (so not a passing reference at all!) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html, {iii) http://web.archive.org/web/20020209014728/http://www.tricolornet.com.br/noticias/arquivo1999/990717.htm A whole paragraph about Jordan Older which, somehow, proves that this is not a passing mention. There are some other mentions too, but for the sake of brevity, I will stick with these. Usmanwardag (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:And what do you mean by quality/significant coverage? What qualifies? Usmanwardag (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute. My eyes are glassy reading all this. Enough is enough. Jus da fax 10:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have eyes?? I clawed mine out 12 hours ago and it really hurt but it was totally worth it!!! KDS4444^Talk 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the absence of independent, reliable sources and the failure of WP:GNG. This one is just not notable. WTucker (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stalwart. Note: if this is kept, someone really needs to go through this article and clear up the crufty parts. Check the number of times "first", "only", and "youngest" appear in the article. Any of these claims not clearly supported by the references need to go. The portion that depends on the poll result with "more than one write-in vote" should go as well. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of the youngest and first are well known to soccer fans because there have been no other americans playing in Brazil (even reserves) until this year. So Jordan Older was the first to play there by 19 years (Until Freddy Adu who just signed in Brazil). Plus, he was 20 years at that time, so he was really the youngest. Ask any soccer fan, he would know. Finally, the question here is notability, not the contents of this article. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as blatant (self)promo of/by a totally and utterly non-notable person. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT this and any similar titles - if it's not a pure hoax, it's pure promo. I'm not seeing anything reliable in a Google search on this guy whatsoever. And the ones in the article have been thoroughly debunked above. Transfermarkt isn't particularly reliable either, and this is a classic example of why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the "hoax" stuff is coming from. We're certainly not talking about David Beckham here, but there's no real doubt that he has played professional football. Given the number of articles WP has about distinctly non-notable footballers I don't quite understand the OTT hostility to this one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other crap exists, so this should be kept? No. Taroaldo ✉ 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this guy has apparently played 12 minutes. Wow. That's nowhere near enough, as per general consensus from other lower-league players that made one uber-brief appearance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you described consensus accurately, but it's also very much unclear whether the USL Second Division was "fully-pro" in 2003. Don't take the listing at WP:FPL as gospel for all years in question. Jogurney (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if the league was fully pro in 2003? You'll have an RS for that, of course. I mean it's not WP:OR or anything...--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda switching the evidentiary burden of verifiability. The claim here is that the league was fully professional and on that basis, the subject is notable. A reliable source would be required to verify both of those claims - that it was fully professional and that he played in it. Claiming verification by default (without a source) and then demanding a reliable source to disprove that unsourced claim is the wrong way around, really. Stalwart111 07:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it isn't. See, there's a listed source saying it's a pro league. There isn't one saying it might not have been. So the burden of proof is exactly where it should be - on those claiming it's not a pro league.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is the source from? You should probably list it here. Stalwart111 is still correct about the way "burden of proof" works - the burden is on proving that it did happen, not that it didn't, so to speak. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the USL Pro match database, which lists Older as having played in a pro match. It even says "Pro league" and everything. It certainly seems a bit more substantial than just claiming that the league might not have been pro in 2003. Because there isn't any RS for that, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2013 08:31 (UTC)

The league claiming it is fully professional doesn't necessarily make it so. And I wasn't the one who made that claim; besides, 12 minutes in a professional match isn't enough as per prior consensus in several AfDs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FergusM1970: No, that link does not list Older as having played in a pro match. All it says is that he was a substitute in a match, which you, as a soccer fan, ought to know. But far from all substitutes are actually used during a match. So as a reference it can only be used to prove that Older was licensed to play for San Diego Gauchos, not that he ever actually played for them. And it does not prove that the league San Diego Gauchos played in was fully professional. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an own goal, my friend - it clearly states he played for 12 minutes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an own goal. I does say that he was on the pitch for 12 minutes (I need coffee...). And judging by the thorough debunking of all of his other claims those 12 minutes on the pitch in a lower league in the US seem to have been the pinnacle of his career as a soccerplayer. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be the sort of reliable source usually accepted for verification that a league is fully professional or not. It may well be that there isn't a reliable source to verify a claim one way or the other. The default, then, is that the claim being made (that it is fully professional) is what requires a source, per WP:V. But challenging it either way is probably not "original research", yeah? Stalwart111 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like those 12 minutes of glory were not in a professional league, but in the top amateur league in the US. According to the San Diego Gauchos article they played in the USL Premier Development League, which was/is the "top-level men's amateur soccer competition in the United States", and at the Pro Development League's official website all "pro" logos are conspicuously absent. And as we all know 12 minutes in amateur soccer does not make anyone notable. I know that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references, but since the burden of evidence lies on people claiming something it's up to Jordan Older and associates to prove that the available information, that is that the San Diego Gauchos, where he earned his 12 minutes, played in the Professional Development League, which by all available information was and is an amateur league, is false. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauchos got relegated to the PDL, but according to the official website of the body that administered both leagues they were in a pro league when Older had his moment of glory for them. Note that that game is listed under the pro league; the PDL has its own option in the drop-down.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats since accepted as not being threats.

I'd like to call the closing admin's attention to the threats I received by the user Stalwart111 on my talk page.. If I was being offensive, someone should have told me here. I'll take it as a serious threat to stop making my point on this AfD. I wonder what's the User Stalwart's motive behind this?? Usmanwardag (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, there are no threats in what he wrote. He just gave you a friendly advice to stop behaving in a disruptive way. A more friendly advice than you IMHO deserve. As for his motives he's probably fed up with your behaviour on this AfD, just like everyone else here. Do you really seriously believe that your behaviour here is helping Jordan Older? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not Stalwart's representative. You are not the closing admin. You are not the judge. So, please... Usmanwardag (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thomas.W's summary is a good one, so I borrowed it. It was posted on your talk page because calling you out here on a conduct issue wouldn't have been appropriate. But if you want to draw attention to it, be my guest. Most comments here with regard to your conduct have been in lock-step with mine. Stalwart111 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rehash of various sources.

Addition to my Aforementioned Summary

I'd like to add little details to the summary I added above.

FuteBol Interior (which is one of the main references) is reliable because (i) The article has an author that is FuteBol Interior Agency. Just to clarify, no specific author is cited in the news related articles. This is an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper (ii) Blog of the site can be checked which proves the fact that it has an editorial staff of its own. (iii) A huge number of wikipedia entries link to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=futebolinterior.com.br&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 (iv) A large number of sites ranked highly in Alexa link to this site (This is not the most convincing point but still it helps). Usmanwardag (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futebolinterior is history, so you can stop writing about them. If you scroll up a bit in the wall of text you'll see that we've checked the references, with the best sources there are, and all evidence shows that Jordoan Older A) has not played a single match in the Brazilian Serie A (see further up the wall), and B) he has also not played a single match in Sweden (he was there for a test, with a Swedish third division team, training with the team, but was found to be not good enough for them, so he was sent back home again; there's a lot more about that too further up the wall). So all he's got left on his soccer CV is 12 minutes on the pitch, playing in the top US amateur league. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly uninformed, the database you used is incomplete, I checked other players known to play in Brazil and they were not in it either so you can stop with this line of reasoning. The Swedish team has been in various leagues including the Swedish 1st division, but this is irrelevant too. I really don't understand your logic here talking about everything but the notability of the subject of the article!.... FYI: In 1990, Ljungskile SK was playing in Swedish "Division 5" and gained promotion to "Division 4", "Division 3", "Division 2", "Division 1" until they reached Allsvenskan in 1997. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived much of my live in Sweden, I'm fluent in Swedish and I'm a soccer/football fan, so I know a lot about Ljungskile SK, most probably more than you do. Older tried out for a spot on the team in 2005, so what Ljungskile did in 1994-1997 is of no interest, what matters more is that they did not play in the first division when Older visited them (a very short visit, because on June 22 2005 he hadn't yet arrived, and on July 1 2005 he had already left, so he couldn't have spent even a week there...). But even that is of very little interest since the team website clearly states that he was not good enough for them so they weren't interested in is services (I've kindly provided a link to that page on the team website a bit further up, if you're interested; translate.google.com might be able to translate that story for you, it's just a passing mention of Older on that page too though, just like on the one Older provided a link to). As for other players not being in the Brazilian database I would be interested in which players you searched for, and their credentials, just to check your story, because after seeing you in action here I'm not prepared to take your word for anything. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you called the Swedish team 3rd division (which they were not) and you also think you know all about Jordan Older's travel plans 8 years ago, but again, I'm trying to bring you back to the topic at hand, so, to remind you, this is irrelevant, and I've debunked the Brazilian database in the comments below, it's clearly a database that is incomplete, but again this is irrelevant too, because the topic of this Afd is about what the sources say, not what some random database DOESN'T say. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) (to take it in opposite order) You have not debunked the Brazilian database, all you have done is claim that it is incomplete, without proving it (just to remind you, for the Nth time: the burden of proof lies with Jordan Older/you to prove beyond doubt that Jordan Older has played in the Brazilian first division, because according to WP:Verifiability the burden of evidence lies with the person who enters something in the article; and so far you haven't been able to prove that JO has played even a single second in down there), and B) the first story on the Ljungskile team website, the one Older himself linked to as a reference, is dated 22 June 2005 and speaks of him in future tense, as an American who is going to practice with them for a while, while the second story, which I've linked to elsewhere on this wall of text, is dated 1 July 2005 and speaks of him in past tense, as someone who visited them but left again because he wasn't good enough. So you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that he spent less than a week there. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (Continued from Above):

All the discussions about the leagues, the minutes and poking fun and bashing this poor man's reputation are not relevant, each league has its own Wikipedia page with all the needed information (If closing admin has the doubts, he can consult those pages). At this point I would just like to reiterate the main points:

1) Futebol Interior (a respected source) did a front page feature on Jordan Older that said he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil, it also said that he played for teams in Europe and was called up to the USA National Team training camp, this is enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... 2) PV News (another respected source) said he played professional soccer in Europe and Brazil, this is enough to add support to the claims 3) the USL Pro Leauge official stats said he played minutes in a FIFA sanctioned fully professional league, this proves WP:NFOOTBALL 4) official blogs from Sao Paulo FC which are edited and are usable sources acording to wikipedia guides say that he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil 5) offical pro team blogs from Sweden say this too... this is too much information to ignore and to doubt. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1: There's no evidence that this guy ever actually appeared in professional matches for any of those clubs, and just being part of a national team training camp isn't grounds for any notability. 2: see point 1. 3:That league isn't fully professional, so that has been debunked. 4 and 5:Again, where's the evidence for any appearances? There's evidence he was signed to these teams, not that he actually appeared in professional matches. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, no and no. A) The three teams he claims to have played for in Brazil were not first division teams at the time Older claims to have played for them (see further up the page), and a search in a Brazilian database with all players who have played in the Brazilian First division returns nothing for Jordan Older; B) the sources only repeat what Jordan Older told them (according to info on the official website of the team in Sweden Older claims to have played for, the one he provided a link to, which was a third division amateur team, Older has not played for them, ever, not a single second), and C) San Diego Gauchos, the team older earned his 12 minutes with, played in the Pro Development League, an amateur league. Period. So you can stop your desperate attempts to save his article and his honour. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SD Gauchos also played in the USL second division, a professional league. That's the one they were in in 2003.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Jordan Older played more than 12 minutes, stop with this bashing of the poor man, the other links showing more minutes are listed above if you need them, so stop with repeating 12 minutes over and over. 2) the league is listed as fully professional in the Wikipedia guide to fully professional leagues, it is also listed as fully professional and FIFA sanctioned on the Wikipedia page about the USL leagues, and this is even not the subject of the discussion. I am trying to bring you back to the topic, can you come with me so we can have a useful discussion about the proper topic of the Afd? 3) That database has been thoroughly debunked, type in Cobi Jones into it, he is known to have played in Brazil after Jordan Older but he doesn't appear in the database either, so the database idea (a good idea) is out of the window, sorry mate! Now let's talk about his notability apart from these 3 IRRELEVENT DISTRACTIONS that you keep repeating, cheers mate. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have any notability, so there's nothing to talk about. His tall stories in his selfpromotional article have been thoroughly debunked. The guy lives in a fantasy world (claiming to have played in the Swedish first division when the website of the team, which wasn't even close to the first division, clearly says that all he did was practice a little with them, and that they didn't want him because he wasn't good enough; sheesh, get real...), can't you read? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can read, ha ha... Good one, mate. I'm sure everyone has promoted themselves at some time, nothing wrong with that, but I'm reading in Futebol Interior (which is a reliable source used hundreds of times already on Wikipedia) what it says about Jordan Older playing there in Brazil in the Serie A for Uniao Sao Joao, Paulista FC, and Portugusa Santista and the US National Team, and in the PV news where it says he played professionally. I've seen more than one front page spread about this player. He's not Zlatan Ibrahimovic, but he's clearly a seasoned veteran professional soccer player. Heck there are news articles about him in 4 languages!...... And now he's founded the Ventura Film Festival in 2004 which is largest in Ventura County where he plays Academy Award winning films and has given awards to Academy Award winning actors and celebrities. Sounds notable to me! Usmanwardag (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're trying to change focus here, away from the soccer, now that things have started to become embarassing. But personally I would rate "the largest film festival in Ventura county" (How many film festivals are there in Ventura County? One? Two?)) as even less notable than 12 minutes in an amateur league somewhere. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: Older's built up enough contacts around the world in professional football that he's recently become a professional football/soccer agent and already sent a young American lad to play professionally in the German Bundesliga, according to the PV News (a fully edited print and online newspaper, the author of this article is Travis Perkins.) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html Sounds like he did the kid a favor by sending him to play professionally in Germany. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not notable either. Getting desperate, Jordan? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable and so did several other editors. In fact, the Santa Barbara film festival is only 30 minutes from the Ventura Film Festival which Jordan Older founded in 2004 if you know, the Santa Barbara Film Festival is one of the top film festivals in the world. And I don't know how many film festivals there are in Ventura. This is another one of your irrelevent discussions. I've counted at least 3 irrelevant topics you've brought up. What I do know is that many reliable news sources/newspapers said that Jordan Older played in the Brazilian Serie A with Paulista, Uniao Sao Joao, and Portuguesa Santista, and that he also played in the USL Professional Leauge and that league is listed as fully professional by Wikipedia and FIFA. And on top of being a well traveled and experienced professional soccer player he has founded his own film festival - the Ventura Film Festival and he's recently become a sports agent for King Sports Management. Honestly, that sounds like an interesting (notable) life to me. Note: I did not witness any of this myself I am just reading from reliable news sources that are used in hundreds of other Wikiepdia articles. Cheers mate! Usmanwardag (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today March 8, 1996 "Speedy wing Cobi Jones, 25, was acquired Thursday by the Los Angeles Galaxy. ... The playmaker spent the last several months in Brazil after signing but not playing with Vasco da Gama. USA Today is decent source for something like this I think. Cattivi (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Signing but not getting playtime is something that often happens, especially with younger players. Which is precisely why having signed for a team isn't enough to prove notability, you must also be able to prove that the player has actually got some playtime. And so far Older & Co haven't been able to prove that he actually played in the Brazilian first division, as claimed in the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this isn't the first hoax article I've come across - I've debunked one myself awhile back. This one is no different to that. This guy has flat-out lied about almost everything, and pretty much all of your sources have been analysed to death - and defeated. Why carry on this farce any further, when the self-promotion this guy has done, to the point of making up various things, is evident? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact C.Fred is an admin that already said this is not a hoax, that was already decided. Are you trying to re-hash old topics or talk about the topic at hand? All I know is that I read in reliable sources that Jordan Older has played professional soccer "on 3 continents" like it says in the article... in Brazil, Europe, and the USA. There are reliable news articles written about him (repeating myself a little here) in 4 different languages. The Futebol Interior article is a front page feature just about Jordan Older and says he played for Uniao Sao Joao EC, Paulista FC, and Portuguesa Santista. Now I know this isn't a source but I can see pictures of him playing in Brazil in news papers from Brazil online and I can see pictures and news articles from Europe. I can see these with my own eyes now, because I wasn't in Brazil in 1994 and 1998 or in Europe in 1993 and I can read the newspaper reports. There are also numerous features about Jordan Older and the Ventura Film Festival and the Academy Award winning films and actors that are shown and attend his festival. I can also see the picture of the young professional American soccer player that Jordan Older personally sent to play professional soccer in Germany this year. These are reliable news papers already used hundreds of times on Wikipedia proving this. Usmanwardag (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You seem to be in a loop or something because it's about the third time in as many minutes that you post the same stuff. We're not impressed, and it does not establish any notability, so find something else to do. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't think it should be this difficult to establish notability for a footballer and it is reading this. On the vast majority of footballer articles they have played and are clearly referenced as playing, for notable teams. This article contains smoke screens such as "various professional teams in Europe and the United States". If a writer is clearly trying to show notability these notable clubs would detailed and referenced as would his games played. Aside some low level appearances, they are not.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that he was a child "whiz kid" who started programming computers at the age of 10, or that he writes top secret software for Boeing or that he is a former scientist who speaks five languages? What about all that?? KDS4444^Talk 11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm sure User:Usmanwardag will start posting about that too soon. As you see a few steps up he seems to have realised that the wild, and totally unsubstantiated, claims about a soccer/football career extraordinaire have been thoroughly debunked since he started to post about the Ventura film festival ("the largest film festival in Ventura county"), and Older helping kids start a soccer/football career in Germany, instead of repeating the tall tales about the soccer/football career like a parrot, as he has earlier done (filling in for his hastily departed friend Fussballspieler11). So I'm sure the programming career and the secret software for Boeing is next on his list. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is willing to spend an hour on going through the wall of text above, so as an example of the false/exaggerated claims in the article, and Older's CV, I've provided links and machine translations (courtesy of translate.google.com) that thoroughly debunk his claims about having played for Ljungskile SK in the Swedish first division (in fact Ljungskile didn't even play in the Swedish first division in 2005, when Older visited them, as can be seen in that article here on en-WP, so that in itself is a false claim). The first link (dated 22 June 2005) is the one provided in the article as a reference for having played in Sweden. But as you can see in the translated version all it says is that Older would spend a week with them so that they could see if he was good enough (which is common practice in the soccer world), mentioned in passing at the end of the article under the heading "Anything else of interest?". While the second link (dated 1 July 2005), also on the Ljungskile web site, was found by me. And as you can see in the translated version it says "He was not good enough. (If) we recruit someone, he must be better than what we have and that he was not". So Older's claims about having played professional soccer/football in the first division in Sweden turned out to be nothing more than having spent a few days practicing with a lower division amateur/semi-pro team, and then being turned down because he wasn't good enough. And the references for having had a career in Brazil are of about the same quality as that, with no support whatsoever for the claims of having played (that is having gotten actual playtime, which is what counts) in the Brazilian first division. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin This Freelancer link should shed some light on what is going on in this AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be brought up at WP:COIN or WP:ANI? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Editing conflict)Well, well, well, a gun for hire. Can't say I'm surprised, though. But he's ruining his own credibility by doing it, which is a pity, because noone is going to take him seriously after this. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further paid editing commentary.

I don't understand what you are talking about: the project at that link, whatever it was, has been removed/ deleted. The cached page says something about hiring someone to defend a Wikipedia article but is short on specifics. Could be anybody writing about anything... Or...? KDS4444^Talk 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty damn clear, and pretty damning, when it was online - User:Usmanwardag has been payed to try and keep this article, as have other users, potentially. The fact the page has been pulled after it being mentioned here is pretty clear proof that Usmanwardag shouldn't be editing any more - they're trying to cover their tracks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already know that Jordan Older is following what's happening on this AfD in real time, with images disappearing from his FB account within minutes of being mentioned here, so he probably had all evidence of the contract removed from freelancer.com soon after MrOllie posted the link here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Before it was removed it showed someone with the username "Usmanvardag" (which for some reason bears a striking resemblance to User:Usmanwardag...) getting a "contract" to defend an article here on Wikipedia for pay. For a measly $34. Just a coincidence, or? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usmanwardag (talk · contribs) bid on the job 6 days ago, which happens to be the same day he started diving in to the Jordan Older article, so it's not a what-if, it's a guaranteed paid editting scenario. While paid editting is not forbidden, coupled with his belligerent attitude, he is very much acting in an inappropriate and combative manner on this AfD. Also, just in case, a screencapped the freelance job on my phone to verify all the info I just stated. Ish dar ian 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting the project to vanish if whomever it was was keeping an eye on this AFD (That seems confirmed now) so I also took a screenshot, which I've uploaded here. - MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha ha. I was wondering why he suddenly changed tack, accepted my admonishment on his talk page and then opted for radio silence. Now I know. Bravo MrOllie! Stalwart111 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break Three: Post paid-editing drama

Delete Non-notable footballer, fails GNG. Ish dar ian 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice conspiracy theories guys. Even the person who created the Afd (KDS4444) and I have both seen the newspapers from 4 different countries Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, USA and they mention at least 7 fully professional teams such as Uniao Sao Joao, Paulista FC, Portguesa Santista, Fluminese, Sao Paulo FC, Campinas FC, Guarani FC, US National Team, UCSB, UCLA, San Jose Clash, San Diego Gauchos,, Ljungskille (I have checked they are a full professional team), and more. I have seen the list of the leauges from 3 different continents where he played and they include Brazilian Serie A, Paulista Serie A, Swiss Cup, MLS, USL Professional Leauge, Germany, a professional league in Sweden, and more. Even KDS4444 has linked to these news articles herself. So despite all of your interesting conspiracy theories I can not deny that he must be truth to the claims in the article. I can read feature articles in Surfer Magazine about Jordan Older and how he founded the Ventura Film Festival himself in 2004 and others listing how it is the largest film festival in Ventura County. I can also see videos of him here at his festival. www . youtu . be/s29IulH_yf4 and here with some very famous "Academy Award winning" and "Golden Globe winning" stars at the Ventura Film Festival www . youtu . be/7P08SfJK-48 and here www . youtu . be/GHv9HLEX6Rc. See all the fans and stars? So I'm sorry I just can't believe in conspiracy theories. I just don't think he faked the entire cast of West Side Story standing next to him and news articles from 4 different countries, in 4 different languages. I even see pictures of Pele and him with David Beckham HERE & HERE. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your employer seems to be getting more and more desperate. But whatever could have been notable about him has been proven to be fake and what little is left is non-notable, so you can stop flogging the dead horse. And no-one gets a Wikipedia article for appearing in a fan photo with Pelé or David Beckham. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that he is working as a sports agent with King Sports Management, I can see the 19 year old American that he arranged to sign professionally in the German Bundesliga here http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html . I think that would be hard to fake, the author of the news article is Travis Perkins and it also says that Jordan Older played professionally in Europe and Brazil (just like the other articles from various countries say). Usmanwardag (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and WP:SALT. Enough of these shenanigans; are you getting paid by the word, or for the result? Kilopi (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]