The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Elivelton Ribeiro Dantas

Elivelton Ribeiro Dantas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Not notable, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237  (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep- Meets WP:GNG with significant in-depth coverage from multiple sources such as the 2000-word detailed article and interview [1], and other feature pieces such as [2]. Nfitz ( talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.