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 no consensus. There is enough disagreement on how the criteria should be applied, and it has been relisted twice with no new input, thus I simply can't see any consensus here.
Dennis -
2¢ 16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
JMHamo (
talk) 15:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom. 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) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP: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) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, I think. Is it not the case that players appearing in the tournament proper (as opposed to the qualifying rounds) of major European competitions are deemed notable, whether their club plays in an FPL or not? it certainly used to be when there was a string of AfDs for Irish footballers. Mr Yusifov played for Qarabag against Internazionale in the Europa League group stage last week, as
Soccerway will confirm even though the article, which is pretty poor, doesn't. Unfortunately, I'm unable to read his local language, so can't contribute references to media coverage indicating likely GNG pass, but the subject has enjoyed a lengthy career in the top teams in his country. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk) 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - can you show where this consensus was shown? I was certain that it was the other way round, that the player had to have been playing in a match featuring two clubs from FPLs.
Fenix down (
talk) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
A particular AfD I remember and have managed to find again is
this over-bundled group. I looked at the candidates one at a time: the first one I !voted to keep (O'Halloran) had played in rounds proper of UEFA Cup but also looked to be a stonewall WP:BIO pass. The next comment was made by
GiantSnowman, who !voted "Delete everyone but O'Halloran, who has played at a sufficent level in European competitions - the rest all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG". I !voted to keep another two, one on grounds of European participation and likely WP:BIO pass, and the second just on Europe, and then GiantSnowman suggested the AfD be closed and any subjects that hadn't played European football be re-nominated. Which rather implies that he thought at the time, as did I, that playing in the rounds proper was enough for football notability. He may well have changed his mind since, and perceived consensus may have changed since, though without going through hundreds of AfDs I couldn't express an informed opinion. (That AfD was closed as a procedural keep all without prejudice against individual renom.) cheers,
Struway2 (
talk) 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I wasn't aware of his European appearances, that certainly gives more notability, but I'm not sure it's enough given the complete lack of other sourcing.
GiantSnowman 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - 28 Europa League and Champions League appearances in the last 6 seasons. Combined with 170+ appearances on the top team in the top league in his country, putting him at the 3rd most appearances ever in the league. And we wouldn't expect him to easily meet
WP:GNG if one started searching through the foreign media?
Nfitz (
talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 12:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 02:02, 24 October 2014 (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.