Deletion of Stephen King (soccer)

Comment: The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability in full compliance with . The mad rush to AfD is only made more ludicrous by the fact that the MLS season starts in four days, counting down on the team's website
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: If we start allowing articles on players who might play a game in '2 months' then the flood gates will be open to every reserve team player and youth team hopeful in the world.  The arguments used for ignoring  here are specious.  There is no certainty that this player will play, and even if he does, it wasn't inevitable that he would do so.  If allowed to stand this will act as a precedent which will waste hugely more time in pointless discussions of the notability of nonentities than would be saved by allowing this to stand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Please note there's no existing notability ''policy'' in the Wikipedia, they're all ''guidelines'' (even ). And  must be used with common sense, otherwise it becomes sort of anarchy, read  for more details
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IAR||WP:WIARM)

Comment: Satisfies  criteria of "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." - I've also added an additional reference to the article. Since we've been here many times before recently, I'll offer my counter-argument to the argument that will inevitably follow, and that's already been advanced a few times above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE)

Comment: Has not played in a match yet. No independent third party references that help assert notability outside the game of soccer so until he plays delete this. This is a clear case where #Athletes applies even though it is ''just'' a guideline. There have been other athletes that have not played but have shown to meet the base requirements for notability as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Bouzanis|this case and are kept. This is no such article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This is ridiculous. He is on the starting roster for a Major League Soccer team. If that doesn't count as notable by , change . And what happens if the consensus is to delete a few days from now, he plays on Saturday, and the AfD closes as 'delete'? Does anyone else agree that sounds silly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN||WP:FOOTYN)

Comment: per CobaltBlueTony. |Common sense dictates that there is a good chance this athlete may meet the guideline of WP:BIO at the weekend. Let's see, and if he does not play, re-evaluation may be needed. I don't see which policy is being violated by temporarily keeping this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I would just like to point out that  does not seem to take into account the varying circumstances that the MLS has to most other worldwide professional leagues when it comes to the draft system. In most other leagues, if a player hasn't played a professional game, he is most likely a reserve/youth player. However, draft picks in the MLS already have considerable experience behind them, and are expected to slot straight in the first team squad. I know it still isn't covered by , but I thought it'd would be worth mentioning, as maybe an update is required
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FOOTYN||WP:ATHLETE)

Comment: I feel like anyone who can read English can understand that  applies only to the content of articles, not to the context in which they are discussed on AFD. Also, I feel like  has an unfortunate tendency to deify the  guideline (despite what you may think, it's not a god - it's not even a policy!). It's one reason why we have AFD - to discuss articles that technically violate notability guidelines but that common sense or the more overarching guideline of  tells us we should keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:FOOTY||WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: This is why I believe in the invocation of  in this case:  It is smart thinking to do research and publish an article on a national-level athlete a few days before his first league game, and better organized than many technically notable player articles, too.  It one-ups the last minute fan-users who might plop out something inferior, which may shape the future of the article for some time.  This effort assists in creating a better Wikipedia, and therfore I think  applies neatly in this single case, as it would for similarly skilled scheduled players who may not yet have played in the league. -&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR)

Comment: unless he has made a professional appearance before this AfD is closed. It shouldn't matter how many people !vote keep |I like it or |he will definitely play soon. If it doesn't meet  or /Notability then it shouldn't be kept. What is the point of inclusion criteria and notability guidelines if they can be ignored in cases where enough people vote to ignore them because they like a particular article. The article will not be lost if it is deleted, it can be restored if/when the player ever actually plays at professional level
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:ATHLETE||WP:FOOTY)