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

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. 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 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]