The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Some participants suggested the notability was marginal, but the overall conclusion is there is enough coverage to write an article on this subject.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The subject fails
WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not made an appearance in a fully professional league. There is not any indication that
WP:GNG is met.
Mattythewhite (
talk) 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
FA Cup is a tier one competition, and there is literally hundreds of articles on the subject online so i'm not sure how wp:gng is not met — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JohnTombs48 (
talk •
contribs) 19:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Even if he doesn't earn a football article he deserves one of some sort surely
JohnTombs48 (
talk) 20:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep for all the above reasons seeing as no one is voting
Comment The fourth tier of the German league pyramid, otherwise known as the
Regionalliga is not fully professional per
WP:FPL.
LTFC 95 (
talk) 22:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject is famous more for his off-pitch activities, i.e Being a footballer who escaped a war torn country to play in England, He is therefor notable for this reason, similar to
Alessandro_Zarrelli, who also in theory breaks
WP:FPL
Keep - I had been working on a draft for a number of months, which I have now merged with this article. On the balance of things just about squeezes through GNG with substantial articles about him in BBC and FourFourTwo.
GiantSnowman 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Clearly fails the subject-specific guideline,
WP:NFOOTY, because he hasn't played at senior international level or for a club from a fully professional league in a senior competition. The articles on BBC, FourFourTwo, the local paper cited in the WP article, and elsewhere are all reworkings of an interview with the subject that highlighted one event: a man chose to go and work in an unstable country but when it got more unstable he didn't like it so he left. As such, 1) those pieces can't be treated as multiple intellectually independent sources, per
WP:BASIC, and 2) so what? it's good background material, but not enough to make someone notable.
All the facts in the original interviews come from the man himself, without independent corroboration. This
piece on a Brazilian news site states that Rachoni was never at Arsenal Kyiv and that the Fluminense he claimed to have played for was not the well-known one but the Mineiro State League Div 2 side Fluminense de Araguari-MG. It also suggests that his economy with the truth on footballing matters casts doubt on his veracity in general. Whether true or not, it's hardly unprecedented that naive footballers get fooled into going to unsuitable places for jobs that either don't exist or exist under intolerable conditions, and no-one helps them when they want to get out. Sadly, it happens to hundreds of young Africans every year. And it's hardly unprecedented that unemployed persons talk up or whitewash their background to try and get attention and hopefully work, but he'd need to get to the standard of Alex Zarrelli mentioned above to be notable for that. I don't see a
WP:GNG pass. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk) 09:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Struway2 (
talk) 10:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Fails
NFOOTY, and I would agree with Struway that there are questions over whether he ever played for the major clubs he claims to but passes wider
GNG. Significant,
non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:
Keep passes
WP:GNG per multiple reliable and in-depth sources found by Fenix down. - YellowDingo(talk) 10:58, 28 September 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.