- 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. No prejudice against recreating in draft if additional bases for notability arise. bd2412 T 21:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Fabrizio Tavano
- Fabrizio Tavano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. New Zealand league is not professional. Simione001 ( talk) 01:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 01:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete As per WP:FPL playing for Auckland City a non professional team in a non professional league even if it is New Zealand's highest league. NZFC (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 10:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete - BLP about a semi-pro footballer who has only received limited coverage in reliable sources (the article on the es:Wikipedia has a few interviews and articles that don't really amount to GNG-compliance).
Jogurney (
talk) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This player has played in the
2016 FIFA Club World Cup finals tournament which is a grey area under WP:FOOTBALL. It has been used as arguement both successfully and unsuccessfully at AfD ;see
Osama Malik,
Emiliano Tade,
David Browne,
Greg Uhlmann,
Articles for deletion/Adam Dickinson
Articles for deletion/Daniel Koprivcic, although each of those articles and their AfDs contain additional information and/or arguments. Club
Oranje
T 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - in those AfDs, for the players kept, either the matches in the Club World Cup in which they played were between teams from two fully professional leagues or sufficient third party sources were found to support GNG. As this player does not and has not played for a team in a fully professional league, they need to explicitly satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 09:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I voted !Keep in Tade's AfD, but I thought he had a stronger notability claim for having participated in multiple Club World Cups and had slightly more in-depth coverage towards satisfying the GNG. I'd like to think that article could have been expanded by now, but Tavano's seems less plausible given the lack of high-profile matches thus far in his career. Jogurney ( talk) 14:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This player has played in the
2016 FIFA Club World Cup finals tournament which is a grey area under WP:FOOTBALL. It has been used as arguement both successfully and unsuccessfully at AfD ;see
Osama Malik,
Emiliano Tade,
David Browne,
Greg Uhlmann,
Articles for deletion/Adam Dickinson
Articles for deletion/Daniel Koprivcic, although each of those articles and their AfDs contain additional information and/or arguments. Club
Oranje
T 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep References in various versions of this article meet WP:GNG. See http://www.tiemporeal.mx/nota/39932-un-mexicano-mas-en-el-mundial-de-clubes/, http://www.voxy.co.nz/sport/5/243799, and http://espndeportes.espn.com/news/story?id=1959705. Nfitz ( talk) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nfitz is topic banned from the Wikipedia namespace and therefore has no standing to comment here. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. 5 games at 2 FIFA Club World Cups, including playing in the semi final and winning the bronze medal with a minnow side like AKC is akin to Iceland getting to semis in the Euros, and got to generate more coverage, like those above, and in depth interviews like this, than a couple of substitute appearances in a local cup, or 46 minutes in a regional cup competition, so common sense applies. Article needs improving not deleting. Club Oranje T 07:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - some comments on the sources presented above which claim to satisfy GNG:
- Oceania Football - this is a primary source, the interview is from the OFC's official website, GNG needs coverage in secondary sources.
- tiemporeal.mx - this is simply a brief article that states little more than he is a Mexican player in New Zealand, difficult to see how this could be used to build out much encyclopedic content
- voxy.co.nz - Although the article title mentions the player, this is not significant coverage of the player himself, with the article mentioning him in the context of routine transfer talk before spending most of the article discussing his club.
- ESPN - significant enough in my opinion to help support GNG, but this coupled with one other Spanish source of minimal length isn't really enough overall. Fenix down ( talk) 08:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- cmt OFC a primary source? Really?. When did that change? Last year you argued OFC was sufficiently removed from the individual to count as independant coverage. What about FIFA? Are they primary also?. And there is other coverage eq of the ESPN one [1], [2], [3], Club Oranje T 12:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- If that player were to come to AfD again I would probably err on the side of caution and say that it probably is primary in the sense that both articles are essentially using the interview with the player to promote club's belonging to their confederation's participation in the club world cup. On your other sources:
- apuntesderabona - looks like a blog to me, not really sure of its significance in terms of coverage
- Univision - doesn't really discuss the player in great depth, about half of the brief-ish article talks about games Auckland might play in the tournament and elements are openly credited as having been lifted from his clubs official (and therefore WP:PRIMARY webpage)
- maquinacementera.com - does add a bit more significant coverage, but I'm not completely convinced. There seems to be a fair bit of little articles out there and a couple of interviews, but I'm not sure there is enough for GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I reached the same conclusion at Fenix down regarding the GNG. Most of the sources in the es:Wikipedia article don't qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources (apuntesderabona and maquinacementara are self-published blogs) and the few that come close just aren't enough. Jogurney ( talk) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- If that player were to come to AfD again I would probably err on the side of caution and say that it probably is primary in the sense that both articles are essentially using the interview with the player to promote club's belonging to their confederation's participation in the club world cup. On your other sources:
- Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.