Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

For American football, see WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Football (soccer). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Football|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Football (soccer). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Primary listing for deletion nominations is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Items may be cross-listed here to allow automated archiving. (as of 2007-11-22)

Football

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Ann Burrett

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 Speedy keep The nominator didn't give any reason for deletion and all voter disagree deletion. @Yudhacahyo: When you nominate a page for deletion, please do not blank, thanks! (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS TIRA

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

Reason Yudhacahyo (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball close and keep. No reason given and the club is a professional club playing in the top league in Indonesia which makes it notable per WP:FOOTY. Sjö (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to state a reason for deletion. Failing that, keep as a professional football club per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason given. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:56, 5 May 2018 (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.

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. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Tweedie

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sockpuppet. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he fails WP:GNG, and is not close to passing WP:NFOOTY (he's back in Australia to play in the MWFA Premier league). As for notability by number of YouTube followers, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels suggests the requirement is more in the order of millions of followers than 10,000, and past (archived) discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers suggests WP:GNG is also required. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chuck (☎) 23:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. I could see nothing that even hinted at remotely sufficient IRS for WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability whatsoever. Playing for Crawley Town would be sufficient to pass NFOOTY but the claim is demonstrably false -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Jingzhe.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) 11:15, 10 May 2018 (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.

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. I left a small, nonpartisan procedural comment in this discussion, but I think the consensus is clear enough that I don't think that affects my ability to close this as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Jingzhe

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

~~Nominating for Sir Sputnik - Reason: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sockpuppet. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY... no appearances in a fully professional league. Not enough to satisfy GNG. Eagleash (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2018 ≤(UTC)

@KnowledgeChuck: What do you mean by "Nominating for Sir Sputnik"? Sir Sputnik is an experienced editor, perfectly capable of nominating a page for deletion himself if he wishes to. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Breaking sticks: I PROD'ed this article. My guess is Chuck thought this was procedurally ineligible for PROD and so passed my proposal on to AfD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, having not played in a fully pro league thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:NFOOTY. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, mmmmm, a sockpuppet, so should really be speedily kept, but the subject is obviously non notable .... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Actually, not quite. Since the sockpuppet removed a PROD before making the AfD nomination, the technically correct procedure would be to revert both those edits and leave the PROD to run its course. However, once a discussion is under way it may as well be allowed to finish. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sockpuppet was the one that was technically correct. The article was PROD'd unsuccessfully once before, so Sir Sputnik's PROD tag was the second time a PROD tag was added to the article, making it ineligible. The technically correct procedure would have been for Sir Sputnik to have nominated it to AfD from the start. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:16, 10 May 2018 (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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fousseyni Tangara

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

Thin claims to notability, might be his playing in the Libyan top tier of association football, and even thinner references. Tagged with BLP sources since 2011, the same year an anonymous user wrote up the text. Must not be confused with another footballer, born 1978 of practically the same name. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found one source (primary) claiming he played in the Syrian, Tunisian and Emirati pro leagues (with Al-Ittihad, CS Sfaxien and Dubai Club) which suggests he could satisfy NFOOTY, but I can't find anything else to support that claim. Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) 11:15, 10 May 2018 (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.

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. Boy, this was a mess. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea, as the ensuing muddled debate exemplifies. The general consensus of the discussion is that Viramontes meets the bar of the GNG, making the discussion about meeting NFOOTY moot. A Train^talk 09:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Viramontes

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.

In anticipation of potential keep votes below, quoting the nutshell section of NSPORT (namely: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition) is not a suitable deletion reationale. The nutshell is merely a summary synthesis of various guidelines (which should be obvious from the vagueness of words such as "major"). The only relevant area of NSPORT for this discussion is NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi and WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more: WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep These articles are unrelated enough that nominating as a WP:MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Nominate them separately if you want. Smartyllama (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [1], [2], and [3], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the difference between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the NFOOTY authors didn't write those articles. To most people in everyday English, a league that has "some professional elements" but is not "fully-professional" is semi-professional, not professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of lower-tier professional athletes have part-time jobs on top of their full-time ones. Minor league baseball is commonly regarded as professional baseball (though its athletes are not inherently notable per WP:NBASEBALL) but its athletes often take other jobs in the offseason to make a living. And I seem to recall a discussion on that talk page reaching explicit consensus that MiLB is professional, not semi-professional or anything else. But this AfD is really not the appropriate place to have this discussion, WT:FOOTY is. I suggest we move it over there. Smartyllama (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do. Giant Snowman 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Liga MX Femenil. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none come even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brenda Viramontes and Anette Vázquez, ~~unbundle the other nominations please~~ delete Zellyka Arce and Valeria Meza - It appears that Viramontes is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., Publimetro article, El Informador article, Non-routine mention in Vanguardia article - led club in goals during the 2017 Apertura tournament). There is plenty of routine coverage online as well, but I think there is enough online coverage to satisfy GNG based on my limited Google Translate skills. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: - why do the rest need to be unbundled? They remain non-notable, do they not? Re-nominating them serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to review online sources to see if any of the other articles meet the GNG. I don't think it's appropriate to bundle them in a single AfD (as GNG compliance for each article must be determined independently). Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them meet GNG, so what's the problem? Giant Snowman 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I checked for online coverage of Anette Vázquez, and it appears an article would satisfy the GNG (e.g., Publimetro article, ESPN MX article, and AS México article). I don't think Arce and Meza would satisfy the GNG based on a quick check of their online coverage, but I reserve the right to look further when I have more time. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my !vote to cover the other 3 articles - I'm not finding sufficient coverage for the Arce or Meza articles to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I detest multiple nominations unless there is clear connected reasoning to do so. Nominate seperately if there is deemed reasoning. I do see issues on more than one but not necessarily on all. Otr500 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: these are basic stub articles, all created by the same editor using the same template, about women who all play for the same soccer team (and all fail WP:NFOOTBALL). They are about as connected as you can get! Giant Snowman 11:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Most editors that are not involved in articles, and just weighing in on an AFD, unless really bored with nothing to do but research an AFD, would not know this so would have been a good reason to include this information in the nomination(s). There has been a slide for finding reasons to keep pseudo BLP's using speciality publications or other primary sources or just a head count over a !vote. The closer normally will not investigate the articles but weigh in on the rationale provided in these !votes, supposedly considering relevant policies and guidelines. I take the time to look at these, investigate to a minor extent, and !vote according to what I see as reliable sources. Trying to "slide 'em in" seems to be a popular thing because the below templates rational does not seem to matter. Consider instances of This page in a nutshell: Otr500 (talk)

WP:notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports):

This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Wikipedia:Notability (people):

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

All of these have the same thing in common in that sources determine notability as well as acceptable rationale for content yet somehow this tries to be wikilawyered. We then seperate reliable sources to exclude primary sources for notability and add depth if a BLP (or BLP related) is concerned. If a source is closely related to a subject (not independent of the subject) it cannot be used for notability. None of the above seem to matter when one or more editors, or a project, seem set on creating articles or making blue links out of all red links, that have been marked thus for article creation when the creation occurs, or speedy deletes would be more common. Expanding a parent article must not have the same prestige or possibly total article count so creating stubby stubs or pseudo BLPs seems preferencial to adding to an existing article to make it better. If a subject is not greatly sourced or even poorly sourced it might augment the parent article but it seems more fun (I guess) to argue stand-alone status.

If you close this as withdrawn and wish to nominate seperately you can ping me and I will give my honest opinion, according to policies and guidelines, as to notability on each or you can take your chances with the bundle. Otr500 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Either find sources showing notability or don't. Giant Snowman 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the smart aleck (I perceive = asswipe) comments. I was in favor of helping: Never mind do not ping me (ever) as I will return the asshole (my perception) favor by not reading your ping. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to AGF (as your user page proudly boasts!) and CIVIL? Giant Snowman 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. AGF is a two-way street not a convenient threat. Follow the rules. Hmlarson (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all apart from the problematic bulk nom, players that aren't independently notable can be redirected to their team. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Are they notable pr not? Also redirecting non-notable sports people to their team page is frowned upon due to transfers etc. and th redirect becoming repeatedly out-of-date/inaccurate. Giant Snowman 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see my points above)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NFOOTBALL completely falls flat for women's football. Fortunately for Viramontes, she pretty clearly passes WP:GNG with interviews with SI [4] and a full profile here [5] [6] which aren't WP:MILL. I haven't reviewed the others nominated, but recommend a procedural keep for them without prejudice for renomination. SportingFlyer talk 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a procedural keep of the others? Giant Snowman 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they should all be judged on their own merits - Viramontes is clearly notable, the others may be as well. Per the multi AfD, An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. SportingFlyer talk 20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for Viramontes (Jogurney being entirely right in stating that NFOOTBALL's irrelevant if the subject can otherwise meet the GNG), neutral on the rest. Ravenswing 11:15, 25 May 2018 (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.

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 WP:TRAINWRECK. Anybody is free to immediately renominate any or all of these. But, please do them as individual AfDs, per the If you're unsure, don't bundle it warning in WP:MULTIAFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Carrandi

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 10:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed some in your list above - can you add the others you've PROD'ed GiantSnowman. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing as it does not meet WP:GNG -Handoto 00:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)
Comment, "(never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability.", WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", does it matter that it is not fully professional? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because otherwise we would have articles about players in the top-league of every country in the world - see WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if it is deemed to be "major" (of course not to be decided here but at the relevant project talkpage) why not? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed by whom? A WikiProject (understandably) determined to retain articles within their narrow remit? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Simply does not compute with either of the relevant notability guidelines. Giant Snowman 14:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, deemed by the wikicommunity, it is nsports that says presumed notable if participated in a major competition not a single wikiproject, if the wikicommunity agrees with the "narrow" guidelines of some wikiprojects and to clarify the apparent contradition here, the word "presumed" that appears in nsport could be changed to "may"? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News results in the US indicate this article needs expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD, not deletion. She plays in the highest league in Mexico. I bet I can guess who will close this AfD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 pages nominated. You have tried to improve one of them. What about the rest? Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split them up and we'll get to work GiantSnowman. You're welcome to help us improve the articles. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These need separate AfDs (per WP:MULTIAFD policy reference inserted 5/2/18 ). So we can address each one individually. Hmlarson (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a simple Google News search for Priscila Padilla yielded a number of articles. I've added some to the article:

"Daniela Pulido, del bullying al éxito femenil". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Tenemos con qué pelear contra cualquiera: Daniela Pulido". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Chivas femenil: Daniela Pulido: "Chivas es más que un equipo, es una familia" - MARCA Claro México". MARCA Claro México (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
Redacción. "Lo vamos a sacar adelante: Daniela Pulido". Milenio (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.

Hmlarson (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree with the above comment that separate AfDs might be more useful, but at the moment, the efforts to add sources to one of them are not indicating GNG, with the majority of them being very brief articles or single quotes from the player. Fundamentally we are dealing with a number of players here who have barely played any football at all. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot they all fail the notability guidelines for footballers, which are ridiculously low as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but 30k+ spectators would likely disagree. Let's see if they beat their last record-setting 38,230 attendance at the final this Friday. ref 1 ref 2 Hmlarson (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, do you think there will be more articles about the players after Friday? What's the timeline on this particular AFD? Seven days, right? Still waiting on the others to be created per WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as according to the WP guidelines on notability, "an athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", and Liga MX Femenil is a major competition. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that is not true, that is simply a summary synthesis of the various guidelines covered by NSPORT, you cannot use that to justify a keep vote. You have to use NFOOTY or GNG. NFOOTY clarifies specifically what is considered a "major competition" in football. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's true. WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes Hmlarson (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Given substantial evidence that at least some of these may meet GNG, these should have been nominated separately. This MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [7], [8], and [9], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the distinction between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that NFOOTY's authors didn't write those articles. In everyday English, a league which has "some professional elements" but isn't "fully professional" is semi-professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. When most people who aren't members of NFOOTY, including the authors of those articles, use "professional", they mean "fully professional." Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, the idiosyncracies of wikipedia:))Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH. If the sources describe it as professional, we can't just do our own synthesis and say it isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the source is clearly wrong, we can. Giant Snowman 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not only does a better consensus need to form regarding the original nomination, a better consensus needs to form regarding the appropriateness of the additional nominations within this single AfD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at the final(s) Wow, 51k+ at the Final last Friday ref. And 45k+ at the 2018 FA Women's Cup Final in England the next day ref. Not to get too subjective, but this is an exciting time for women athletes and their fans. Relying on an outdated notability guideline to attempt to delete articles about the players seems rather counter-intuitive at this point. Hmlarson (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I meant to say counter-intuitive and counter-productive ↑. Hmlarson (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. High one-off crowds aren't a justification for notability – there were over 53,000 at the FA Trophy final in 2007 and 40,000–50,000 crowds at most Rangers home matches in 2012–13, but that doesn't mean that National League or Scottish League Two players should be deemed notable. Number 5 7 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SIGCOV with only 2 references, one to a very short bio, the second to a page that does not exist (presumably not archived). The subject does not meet the very low bar set by WP:NFOOTY because the league is not fully professional as required. Even if it was fully professional the line should be drawn somewhere - the page contains very little information about the subject. The subject may be notable in the future, but not right now. One goal in a final and plays in a semi-professional league is all we have. Hmlarson, just because the guidelines are outdated does not mean they should not be followed. Perhaps you should work on amending them if you don't like them. The subject should not get special treatment due to their sex unless it contributes to their notability.

This does not meet the criteria for WP:MULTIAFD, similar subject, with different names or titles and different players of varying ability and coverage. Each page should be judged on its merits. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that WP:NFOOTY is a low bar for men but less so for women in that there are fully professional leagues in far fewer countries. Liga MX Femenil is the highest division of women's football in Mexico, a nation with a rich football history. The letter of the law may not be met here but I do believe the subjects of these pages do meet the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. --J04n(talk page) 19:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Giant Snowman 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that they play in the highest division of women's football in Mexico. When WP:NFOOTY was drafted (I'm obviously assuming here) men's leagues were in mind and the highest levels were fully professional. --J04n(talk page) 11:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But playing in the highest division is not sufficient (again, please read WP:NFOOTBALL) - it has to be fully-professional. By your logic playing in the highest women's division in, say, Fiji would make someone notable? Absolutely ridiculous. Giant Snowman 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously not going to change each other's mind, but I did qualify my statement that Mexico has a rich tradition of football. Cheers --J04n(talk page) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment MurielMary's logic is flawed. There are many men's leagues lower than the highest league in the land that are fully professional. It is not a good comparison. --- I stopped in for a look at the AfD list and saw this one. The page is one of the worst pages I have ever seen. In my opinion it does not belong on Wikipedia. I come from a background of editing and creating pages for scientists, authors, journalists and other notable people; the notability bar is set so much higher. "I graduated college with a PhD, joined a professional association and had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal" just doesn't cut it for notability. Here I see that "I played soccer in the highest league in the land and kicked a goal in a final" and the goal can't be verified because the 6 month old link to the reference is dead, is creating such a long AfD discussion, and its re-listed is just unbelievable. What else has this person done? Where is the in depth coverage? This entry is not worthy of an encyclopaedia. This person does not meet the very low notability bar set by WP:NFOOTY, she is not notable off Wikipedia and she is definitely not notable on Wikipedia. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

- Delete I just removed the invalid references. Now there are none. How is this even a debate? RobP (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Priscila Padilla and Daniela Pulido, delete the others - It appears that these articles can satisfy the GNG (e.g., Proceso article and El Informador article on Padilla and Esférico article and Life and Style magazine selection/write-up on All-Tournament XI on Pulido). I am struggling to find sufficient sourcing for the other articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see points above from Hmlarson and myself). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SPORTSPERSON. There does appear to be more interest in deleting articles about women Mexican footballers than actual adherence to Wikipedia guidelines from some folks here. Particularly interesting when they have admin privileges. Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I do follow guidelines - WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I don't think anyone is arguing (convincingly at least) that these articles satisfy NFOOTBALL (and I don't think Hmlarson's comment above is constructive). However, failure to meet NFOOTBALL is not sufficient grounds for deletion if an article satisfies GNG. Sadly, very few editors appear to be willing to address the GNG (I know, it's more difficult to apply). Jogurney (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:NFOOTY is a very helpful guideline in a lot of instances. Unfortunately, there have been several AfD's I've been associated with where players or coaches who fail WP:NFOOTY are not judged by the voters on WP:GNG merits (which they should have passed, in my opinion) and have been deleted. It's even more difficult for women's football since the number of notable players is greater than the number of professional leagues. This is a classic case: The Liga MX Feminil has come from nowhere to become internationally relevant in the last year. There's a genuine debate as to whether it's fully professional or not (though articles like this aren't helpful: [10]). The question for each of these articles needs to be whether WP:GNG is met for each player individually, ignoring the WP:NFOOTY requirement, and they should not be bundled. Carrandi herself has a ton of relatively routine coverage for her work with Chivas (the news specific to her appears to be too primary), but it's coverage that we would assume notability for in a men's professional league, since there's a ton of coverage. SportingFlyer talk 20:30, 17 May 2018 (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.

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) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Morán

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

Previously deleted by PROD, re-created by same author. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 10:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hardly think a 15 year old kid passes GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", is it not a "major" competition? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL requires "fully-professional" - this is not. Giant Snowman 08:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree, but wp:nsport does not ie. "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article.." Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL is a more specific guide than NSPORT - and the other alternative is meeting GNG, which this does not do either. On what grounds would you consider this topic to be notable? Giant Snowman 14:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i dont, hence the "comment" not "keep", thanks for clarifying things. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the article says she hasn't actually played a game in the league, so it's irrelevant whether doing so would make her notable. As I've explained on other similar AfD's, I think it would, but in this case, that's irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not actually played in the Liga MX Feminil, so whether doing so would make her notable is a moot point. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (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.

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) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Iranian expatriate footballers

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

Fail WP:NOTSTATS and can find them in Category:Iranian expatriate footballers Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced, NOTSTATS, incorrect (some aren't expatriates, they are foreigners of Iranian descent etc.) - overalll, just not needed. Giant Snowman 08:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per article subject and content. London Hall (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, better served by the category in question, and a WP:NOTSTATS failure. I'm curious to know if this is used elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last time I mentioned this I wanted to delete due to possible list craft. Govvy (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lists of current players are likely to go out of date fairly quickly. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (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.

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. An interesting discussion, but consensus is that GNG is not met, nor NSEASONS. Usually these discussions degenerate, but this has been a rational discussion with many salient points made on both sides, so kudos to the participants here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 New York Cosmos season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. General consensus is that clubs that don't play in a fully-professional league are not allowed to have a season article. Also this. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that the WP:N is an arbitrary guideline, rather than a rule. It's arbitrary because it is up to individual users to interpret the guideline and deem if articles are in compliance. Leyton Orient is competing in the Conference National League, a semi-pro English league outside the English Football League system. If the WP:N was a RULE, the page would not have been allowed to be created, and if it slipped through users filters, it would be up for deletion currently. Arbitrarily, users have deemed that Leyton Orient is more deserving than the New York Cosmos of a "season" article.

I have become aware of the reasoning for the WP:N guidelines since yesterday. It is to prevent people from creating articles for ANY "team". This article is not an article about a 30 year fantasy football league/team and it is not about a 13-year old travel soccer team in Suffolk County, New York. It's an article about a professional team playing (one) season in a semi-pro league. Due to the folding of a USSF sanctioned division two league, the team has chosen to play in another USSF sanctioned league. The article is also about a team that is competing in the premier domestic cup competition (U.S. Open Cup). The Cosmos are not competing in this competition as an NPSL team. They are competing under special consideration by the USSF, that they and their NASL counterparts are professional teams that have chosen to play in a lower league as they look to play in a new professional league for the 2019 season.

As a side note: During the telecast of the Boston City FC v Cosmos April 29th match; Boston City FC announcers repeatedly stated that the Cosmos are a professional team playing against a much weaker side. They "look forward to seeing how weaker teams (than Boston) do against the Cosmos".

Tychu9 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few things on this comment first. 1. the fact that the Leyton Orient article exists is not reason for this article to exist. 2. WP:FOOTYN has pretty general guidelines about notability, and professional teams playing against non-professional teams is usually not enough to establish notability. 3. Technically, NPSL is not officially sanctioned by USSF, they only sanction divisions 1-3 and NPSL is not one of them. 4. Competing in the domestic cup is not a justification for this article, or for any similar article for a team competing in the competition. 5. Technically it is the New York Cosmos "B" team that is competing, so the article title itself is off.

I think that the conversation surrounding notability for team seasons is one worth expanding upon, but I don't think this is the place to do it. For now, the inclination should go toward the consensus that these articles are not notable, and looking at the citations there's no clear evidence it is. Per GiantSnowman I'm inclined to vote delete, although I think seasons such as this are worth revisiting in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not pushing for the removal of Leyton Orient's page. What I am contending is that the existence of the Leyton Orient page shows that it is a guideline rather than a strict RULE. In fact I am pushing for the expansion of the guidelines to allow a "season" page for ANY team (in an organized pyramid team)that has an active fan base. I update the page as a hobby; and for many people, wikipedia is a valuable source of information for sports teams and their leagues. On my position of the WP:FOOTYN being a guideline rather than CODE; there shouldn't be a move to "look at expansion in future". It is not a code of baseball that needs to be voted on for consideration to change. But as a guideline; it is fluid and should be expanded or defined at any time. A RULE is not arbitrary. Either something fits or it doesn't fit. The article in question, was arbitrarily deemed out of compliance with a poorly defined guideline. What makes one article (Leyton Orient) compliant, while this one is out of compliance? Until that question is answered or the guideline is rigidly structured, this article is compliant. I vote keep.Tychu9 (Tychu9) 19:11, 1 May 2018

Comment if that's the case, this isn't the place to do it. This is an AfD, not a place to discuss changes to guidelines and policy. I am not 100% certain where you should propose those changes, but I know it isn't here. Also your argument is heavily reliant on the idea that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I recommend reading that first. Jay eyem (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines are important in maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. They can serve to keep content included, if an article meets the guidelines but is found distasteful by many. They can also bring to light articles created that clearly lack notability and are indefensible. Finally, the guidelines can lead to discussions such as this one about an article that some may see as falling short while others find notable. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not "hard and fast rules." "Guidelines are generally meant to be best practices." "Guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." It is for this reason that both the general notability guideline and the sports team seasons guideline define what is notable without saying that articles that fail to meet the criteria are automatically excluded from the encyclopedia. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the article should not be included. This is where reason and common sense come in. While it will usually be plainly obvious to most Wikipedians that an article that fails to meet the notability guidelines simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, in some cases, reason and common sense dictate otherwise. While the rebuttable presumption that an article should be excluded is rarely rebutted, in my opinion, the unique circumstances surrounding the 2018 Cosmos season create a convincing case that we should look beyond mere rote application of the guidelines.

If I have any concern about the notability of the subject of an article I am considering creating, I first consult the WikiProject that is most closely related to the article's content. WikiProject Football mentions that there are guidelines for the notability of players, teams and leagues. It is silent regarding guidelines for clubs' seasons. This surprises me, since there are many such articles. The club notability guideline says, "All teams that have played in the national cup...are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Since the Cosmos are participating in the 2018 U.S. Open Cup, it stands to reason that this element, which makes the team notable, also makes the article in which it will be discussed notable. If that element is so important that it alone can confer presumptive notability on a club, how could it not also confer automatic notability on a season during which it takes place? The Cosmos participation in the U.S. Open Cup should be discussed in prose in the article about the club's 2018 season. That is something which needs to be improved in the article, not a reason for it to be deleted. It is important to recognize that the Cosmos are not competing in the US Open Cup as an NPSL qualifier. Rather, the USSF is treating the team as one that plays in a fully professional league (like the NASL) and giving it an automatic entry to the tournament, despite the fact that the USSF decertified the NASL of which the Cosmos are a member club. If the USSF is treating the Cosmos in the same manner in which it treats teams in fully professional leagues, shouldn't Wikipedia consider doing so as well?

In the absence of clear guidance from WikiProject Football, we are left with the guideline for seasons of all sports teams, which says that articles for seasons can be created for teams in top professional leagues. If this rule were applied to association football articles without reason and common sense, 2017–18 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season or any other article about a team in a second-tier league would be a candidate for deletion, unless it met WP:GNG. Yet, in the context of association football clubs, I believe few Wikipedians would challenge the notability of the season of any club in a fully professional league (as mentioned above, even though that is not what the guideline says). Please do not misinterpret my point. I am not saying that since the Wanderers article appears in the encyclopedia even though it fails (or may fail, subject to WP:GNG,) the criteria, that leads to the conclusion that the 2018 Cosmos article also belongs in Wikipedia. What I am saying is that the notability guideline is not a rule that should be applied by rote. Rather, reason and common sense may sometimes result in a conclusion that departs from the notability guideline. That's how we end up with articles like 2016–17 Leyton Orient F.C. season.

Despite failing WP:NSEASONS, the 2018 Cosmos article appears to meet WP:GNG. NBC Sports reported on the Cosmos request to USSF to be included in the U.S. Open Cup. ESPN reported on the USSF granting the request. This clearly represents significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the Cosmos. It is reasonable to expect that more coverage is likely to ensue. The club currently has 16 players on its roster that meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for players. Many NPSL clubs have no such players, and the overwhelming majority appear to have fewer than five. Unlike most NPSL clubs that are just happy to appear in the U.S. Open Cup, the Cosmos expect to advance deep into the tournament and earn a match against an MLS team. The performance of a player such as Chris Wingert, who played 14 seasons in MLS can be expected to draw attention from that league's fans and to generate additional media coverage. Rafael Garcia played six seasons in MLS. The club conducts its affairs in a manner far above that of an NPSL club, and the media have paid attention. Wikipedians should use reason and common sense to do the same. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without trying to badger, I would like to once again point out that it is the "New York Cosmos B" team that is competing in the NPSL, not the "New York Cosmos". If nothing else, the article should at least be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Jay eyem (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coment I'm willing to concede that point IF it comes down to "moving it or NOTHING". But my reasoning (and some of the other supporters) for viewing 2018 as a Cosmos season and not Cosmos B is; There is no "A"team. So we can't technically have a "B" team. Jacksonville Armada is not treating it as their "B" squad. On their website they had the tagline "New Season, New League, New Look". Speaking as a fan, I believe that the reason why the NPSL and team is calling it the "B" team is the simple fact that the New York Cosmos B had already applied to be a member of the 2018 NPSL season well before the hiatus of the NASL season and first team. Another point is that, the simple majority of 2018 New York Cosmos "B" players signed with the club and were professional players from previous seasons. There are only 4-5 returning players from the 2017 Cosmos "B" campaign. Tychu9 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2018

Coment It is OR to speculate on why the Cosmos themselves continue to call their NPSL side "Cosmos B". The simple fact is that they do, and we should not confuse the issue by adopting a different style to everyone else.[11] SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Comment I agree that identifying the team as something other than Cosmos B is original research. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cannot consider the names or content of articles on Wikipedia through the lens of fans. In order to maintain neutrality in article titles, we should use a name derived from reliable sources where one is available. All reliable sources, including the organization's own website, are identifying this team as Cosmos B, not Cosmos. The reasons for that are not relevant. The fact that Cosmos fans regard the NPSL squad as something other than a "B" team could lead to the club being identified simply as "Cosmos" on the basis of this being a commonly recognizable name. However, when we consider the entire universe of Wikipedia users, only a small fraction are Cosmos fans. The rest of the users likely regard this as a "B" team, since that is what they see in every reliable source. Finally, using "B" in the article title distinguishes this article from an article about the organization's main club, which the organization says is on hiatus. This is preferable under WP:SMALLDETAILS. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant to address this point which had previously been made by Jay eyem, but I failed to do so, so I don't see resurrecting it as badgering. I do agree that the team is clearly identified in all original sources, including on its own website, as Cosmos B and not Cosmos. The article should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the organization has made it quite clear that it cancelled the 2018 season.[12] This content clearly refers to a different team within the same organization, New York Cosmos B. Even if the material is sufficiently notable, it does not belong on this page, and should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Move The article should be moved, but the content should not be deleted. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move I’ll be happy with that consensus. Tychu9 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Cosmos are a professional team in operation since 2011, with a viable ownership structure. The league in which they participated was involuntarily de-sanctioned (the North American Soccer League) on the basis of inconsistently-applied USSF PLS guidelines. The sanctioning body is currently undergoing litigation to determine the nature of its relationship with other leagues and whether or not its interests conflict with its role as impartial arbiter of standards. While this litigation is underway in Federal Court (as of 1 May 2018), it is relevant to question whether or not the decision to de-sanction the North American Soccer League met basic ethical standards. The initial finding of the Federal Court found that while there was not enough evidence (absent discovery) at this stage to meet the heightened involuntary injunction standards, there was certainly indication that legitimate questions existed as to the propriety of the USSF's decision-making process, their inconsistent behavior with other leagues. Judge Brodie indicated in her preliminary injunction motion ruling the NASL's claims would likely survive the USSF's follow-up motion to dismiss. In other words, a trial is likely to be granted. Without a final determination in this active litigation, it is premature to ascribe the USSF's decision as legitimate. The deliberation as to whether the New York Cosmos are a member of a professional league is very much still in flight.

Furthermore, on the basis of deciding whether the New York Cosmos itself are a professional soccer team/organization, it should be noted that they met all USSF's club-specific PLS requirements for a professional team.

As indicated above by Taxman1913, their participation in the United States premiere domestic tournament reflects the special temporary circumstances a number of viable club organizations (e.g., New York Cosmos, The Miami FC, Jacksonville Armada) associated with the NASL and meeting all club-specific USSF PLS guidelines for a professional team found themselves in at the beginning of the year. Their participation in the 2018 Lamar Hunt United States Open Cup was only possible through the direct sanctioning of the United States Soccer Federation.

Dream-king (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is pretty much word-for-word what you wrote at Talk:2018 New York Cosmos season and really does not address the notability concerns involved. Could you please follow the discussion a little more closely and offer a followup to explain these points? Jay eyem (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention it's editorializing and therefore both OR and highly-debatable. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Nominators Comment: You guys are making this harder than it should be. Look, the fact is that the Cosmos are not playing in a fully-professional league right now. They, or Cosmos B, are playing in the National Premier Soccer League, which is at best a semi-professional league, not a fully-professional league. Technically, it isn't even Cosmos playing in NPSL but the B team. Right now you guys will play in 1 US Open Cup game but that makes no difference. With all this, this article should be deleted. Simple as that. Leyton Orient arguably should be deleted too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do think we're talking about two separate issues. There seems to be a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. Perhaps the material should be moved to a different article, but that's a different discussion on notability. Delete this, create the new page, and we can debate it there. SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a consensus has formed that the content of the article is about Cosmos B and not the Cosmos. It is also clear that the article (no matter its title) fails WP:NSEASONS. However, articles posted on the websites of NBC Sports and ESPN clearly represent significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the club. It didn't take long to find these articles, and I suppose I could find more. Let's keep in mind that the team has only played one match. The guidelines at WP:NSPORTS are intended "to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline." They are not intended to supplant the general notability guidelines. The content of this article meets WP:GNG based on the coverage by NBC Sports and ESPN; such content simply needs to be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Anyone who is a proponent of deletion without moving needs to demonstrate why the content fails WP:GNG. So far, this has been glossed over and ignored. I would be delighted to read the opinions of the participants in this discussion who wish to address that issue. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, WP:NSEASONS. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this page doesn't have anything to do with the subject of its title. I also happen to think a hypothetical 2018 New York Cosmos B season fails WP:NSEASONS, but that's a separate discussion. SixFourThree (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Delete I maintain that the article still fails WP:NSEASONS and agree that a Cosmos B article would also fail NSEASONS. It could possibly meet WP:GNG but that hasn't been demonstrated yet: nearly all of the sources just discuss the signing of new players, which is routine coverage. The one that isn't about signing new players is about the decision for the team to join the Open Cup qualifying, but that doesn't do much to demonstrate the notability of this season. I think a lot of the keep arguments are effectively WP:INHERIT arguments, but one of the strongest arguments discusses the lack of guideline that the project itself uses. This is definitely worth discussing in the future, but especially based on the current sourcing I think deletion is the right option. Jay eyem (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and not enough there for WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NSEASONS and just about every other WP:GNG based reason. The professional Cosmos are not playing in 2018 (which is what this article is titled), the semi-pro Cosmos B are playing, but is not significantly covered in independent, widely distributed media. At best there are dedicated blogs to NPSL teams (such as this for the Cosmos in general). The closest this comes to meeting GNG is when the subject of the news article is the NASL team's non-operations and the mention that the B team is still playing like this ESPN article. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Helbling

(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 by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Swiss second division is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article says he's in the Swiss Challenge League and our article on that says that it's a professional league. So what is the problem here? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the Swiss Challenge League, WP:NFOOTY requires footballer to have played in a fully professional league. The WikiProject Football maintains a list of leagues confirmed to be fully pro at WP:FPL. You'll note the Swiss Challenge League isn't on it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Waitaminute... we're using a user-generated wikiproject page as a definitive source to determine inclusion criteria? What is the distinction between "professional" and "fully professional"? Honestly, it sounds to me like "almost pregnant", which is nonsensical. You either are, or you aren't. Apologies for asking here... this might be a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: No, we're using reliable sources to determine the inclusion criteria and gathering them in one place for ease of access. Having used this list ten years now, the absence of a league from the list isn't due to lack of interest, but rather because it either ins't fully pro or there aren't good sources on the matter. As for what a fully professional league is, professionalism of leagues is not a binary state, but a sliding scale. The adverb fully is used to distinguish from semi-professional leagues, where some but not all players are unpaid amateurs or part timers who have to hold down other jobs outside of football to earn a living. Leagues like this are regularly described as professional, as is the case with our article on the Swiss Challenge League, but are not covered by WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. I often run across football-related disagreements about inclusion and I usually move on to something else because (a) I don't follow the sport, and (b) I never fully understood the basis for inclusion. You have helped clear things up. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I myself was surprised to see the Swiss Challenge League was not considered fully professional. As per this source, Swiss football does not distinguish between professional and semi-professional clubs, and Challenge League players frequently have to take on additional work, showing it's not fully professional: [13] Therefore, he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources too weak to pass GNG and doesn't meet NFOOTY. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (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.

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. Enigma^msg 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Andersson

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

Doesn't pass basic GNG. The person is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Search engines doesn't have any mention of the guy and his accomplishments as well. Butch.labajo (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Andersson was a football player in Allsvenskan in 1933-1934 which limits the availability of digitalised reference material, but he had 15 appearances in the top football league and scored 7 goals which means WP:NFOOTY is met. Trying to search for information in online sources is made more difficult by the fact that the name Hugo Andersson is common, and there's another football player by the same name in MFF today, but there is a print source in the article which is both independent and appears to be non-trivial coverage. I'll get it from the library tomorrow and check. --bonadea contributions talk 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as per Bonadea. SportingFlyer talk 04:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the argument that Allsvenskan is a fully professional league is somewhat asynchronous – it wasn't at the time, so it's more that he played in a league that would become fully professional. But we've generally wanted to cover the early stages of sports that would later become, so to speak, financially more important. /Julle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All the above "keep" votes base their argument on meets/passes WP:NFOOTBALL/WP:NFOOTY/WP:NSOCCER. But Allsvenskan was not a fully professional league by ~~1934~~1931, as the last editor above admits. Further, the SSG found at WP:ATH does not overrule GNG, see the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Hence no policy-based argument for keeping can be found. Sam Sailor 18:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Ammended, Sam Sailor 07:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For bonadea to report on their findings. As Sam Sailor correctly points out, WP:NFOOTY (as part of WP:NSPORT) is the one SNG that does not replace GNG or WP:BIO, so arguing that just NFOOTY is met is not sufficient. However, 1932–33 Malmö FF season exists as a potential merge target per WP:ATD which should also be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL whether we like it or not. Should be kept and improved.BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (fewer than 25 appearances). SoWhy makes a valid point in his relist comment: consider an ATD outcome; I have changed my !vote. There is nothing much to merge anywhere, as the only available information in the current article is name, nationality, position, games played, and goals scored, and these data are already present in List of Malmö FF players (fewer than 25 appearances).

Our sole source presently is

Alsjö, Martin (2011). 100 år med Allsvensk fotboll (in Swedish). Idrottsförlaget. pp. 307–309. ISBN 978-91-977326-7-3.

I don't believe pages 307–309 are about Hugo Andersson. Think about it: how much could the sources then or now possibly write about a player that only had 1 season, and only played 15 games out of 22 on a team that placed 9? Did anybody pick up the book and had a look at it?

Searching for 100 år med Allsvensk fotboll 307–309 here on Wikipedia, I find the above source has been re-used verbatim in around 200 articles. This suggests that pages 307–309 in the source are mere database entries, and that the mention of Hugo Andersson is trivial. Can anyone find any other sources about him? Sam Sailor 07:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2018 (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.

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. Some people say it fails GNG others say it passes. Many words were typed but consensus there was none. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup semi-finals

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

Semi Finals aren't notable. There is no trophy for reaching this stage of a cup. The article lacks goalscorers making it have less info than the specific season articles. No other Cups have a page for semifinals making this yet another example of pro English football bias. Dougal18 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any evidence that the semi-final stage of the competition (as an overall concept) is notable enough for a stand-alone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are some unique features of FA Cup semi-finals, particularly with respect to venues and participation by lower or non-league clubs, which this list article explores. I say "weak keep" because it just about barely walks the line of passing WP:GNG in terms of sourcing. The claim of "pro English football bias" above is a ridiculous piece of bad faith by Dougal18 against the many editors who have contributed to the article over the years, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "pro English football bias" is simply a statement of the blindingly obvious when it comes to the way that articles are treated at AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lower/non league teams making the semis (or even the final) isn't unique to the FA Cup and neither is where the semis are held. GNG doesn't entitle a subject to a article - it only presumes notablity. By that logic we can have a article with all the First Round matches on it assuming it passes GNG.--Dougal18 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is in fact the correct logic. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these individual matches meet GNG, but that could be said for any FA Cup match. For me, the question is does the overall concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" meet GNG, and for me the answer is no. Your comment above suggests that you would endorse an article entitled First round of the FA Cup, which listed every single first round match that has ever taken place (of which at a conservative estimate there would be more than 5,000), and frankly that would be utter insanity -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the First Round of the FA Cup passes GNG, it would be eligible for an article. It does not, nor do the individual matches that constitute it, as I would believe they would be WP:ROUTINE. I also don't think the individual matches for a semifinal pass GNG. The reason why this article does as a whole is because the topic as a whole passes WP:GNG, even though it's currently a poorly sourced article. Sources like [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] The historical focus on these games as a whole clearly passes WP:GNG, especially considering there's history with neutral venues and changes in the way the semifinals have been conducted over time. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I show further below, and with all due respect, SportingFlyer, you completely misunderstand the notion of independent notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, in my opinion. R96Skinner (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the delete votes above me have cited any policy apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Passes WP:GNG and the statistics presented are well documented, so it's not just a blob of numbers. SportingFlyer talk 01:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would call this a good reference article, it lacks the citations for GNG but that can easily be fixed, for those that say these games aren't notable need to come up with another argument, I am with SportingFlyer and point to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly these individual games are notable, I doubt anyone would dispute that, but is the overarching concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" notable, meriting combining them all into one overall article? Personally I think not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, certainly does not pass WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I decided to change my mind on this article. Firstly anyone that says the topic of this article fails GNG need to stop it, of course the topic is going to pass GNG, there will be multiple sources you can collect up and add to the article. You could easily have 100 citations here. I believe this is comes under unnecessary content forking, you already have competition pages for each year and that will cover the semi finals along with club season pages which are in those semi finals. Establishing the criteria for any list needs to cover it's importance to the subject and this list on it's own I believe fails WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think it's an unnecessary fork. It's certainly not a superfluous fork. There's plenty of information on this page, including the history of the formats, the neutral venues used, or the statistics of how often clubs have reached this stage, which would not be found in the club season pages or the yearly competition pages. Users may want an overview of all semi-finals, where they've been played, or have some other reason for wanting to view the topic as a whole. Furthermore, as you've noted, it passes WP:GNG, and it does so as a group, due to the number of articles or record sites which talk about the stage of the competition as a whole - not because the individual games do. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I have no idea what I am doing or saying about the article, I am drawing between keeping and deleting yet again, I actually think I am wasting my time trying sometimes, my main problem is the person that nominated this article for deletion, Dougal18 has been disruptive multiple times in the past and I feel this nomination is suspicious. I'd be happier if this whole AfD was withdrawn and put forward with a different person. I do see the usefulness of the material, I just feel upset that people are saying no evidence of notability trying to delete an article which a lot of people have put effort into creating, when clearly there is a huge amount of notability to the subject matter because millions of people watch these semi-finals on TV. Govvy (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been disruptive since my indefinite (and third) ban was lifted after 3 hours 32 minutes back in January after promising to be a good boy. I've created 2 pages since then and nominated a page for deletion. The page was deleted without any questioning of my past disruption. I have better things to do than maliciously AfD an article and hope people reach a consensus for deletion. The effort people put into the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. BTW, how many viewers did the 1888 semifinals get?--Dougal18 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by the number of television viewers, but rather by the GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, of which a television show is not. This AfD frustrates me for a similar reason as you've noted: it's put forward for not meeting GNG along with an other stuff doesn't exist argument and a clear I don't like it/bias argument. No indication of a before search by the author or any of the delete votes. The reason why this is notable (along with the third/fourth place article) and not say the quarterfinals or the semifinals of a cup in another division is because they've been covered extensively as semifinals (I've listed sources above), in part because of the history of the competition, in part because neutral grounds were used showing it's an important stage in the competition: you don't get to host a home game anymore (covered in sources) [24]. It baffles me why this has legs. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a perfectly reasonable content fork. This article/list contains nothing but verifiable information that, in principle, could be included in FA Cup if it wasn't for the fact that it would be ridiculous bloat on an article owing to the lengthy history of the competition. I also take particular issue with a large part of the nomination rationale; providing an increased level of detail on one country's cup competition shouldn't be considered a reason to delete that one, so much as a reason to enhance the coverage of others if there are editors that are willing to put in the time. Similarly, a criticism of the fact that this article lacks goalscorer information compared to the more detailed articles is surely an argument either for the usefulness of this type of page as a navigation tool, or an argument for increased information on this page - not one for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup article doesn't have a list of finals let alone the semis. Keeping the article in the hope other editors enhance others is no reason to keep whatsoever. By your arguments an article listing all the games of a certain round in any cup would be acceptable. The page provides less info than the specific season articles and should be deleted. If it gives the same amount of info or greater, then deletion should still take place as it just rehashes info from elsewhere in an unnecessary article.Dougal18 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the amount of RS that discuss this as distinct topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every stage of a cup competition is "notable" but only in the strict sense of being widely discussed and reported in the media when it happens. Some great games even get their own special, privileged place in history. But "semi finals" as an independently notable notion?! Someone's idea of a joke perhaps. Alternatively, someone confuses talk about the weather being cloudy over the channel during the Allies' landing in France in WWII as proof of "cloudy weather" being a notable subject! -The Gnome (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is yet another WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. There's coverage even when it doesn't happen, it's a notable event for many clubs as shown above and the neutral site lends itself to notability and coverage as well. [25] SportingFlyer talk 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I'm a long-time football fan and watch British football quite closely. :-) So, any argument about me "not liking" any stage of Cup competitions, such as F.A Cup semi-finals (and Wikipedia articles about 'em), is a non-starter. Can't raise a deader argument than that.

Let me amplify again the substance of my input: I never stated that semi-final games are not important or notable, or that they're not widely reported, etc. The point is that there is no separate and independent notability of semi finals as a category that would merit an article on them! See, there's a lot of confusion about independent notability going round in Wikipedia. For instance, people read a bunch of front-page newspaper articles about robberies, where the robber reaches into his back pocket to draw out a weapon, and they start thinking, "Hey! Back pockets are notable!" No, they're not. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you. From fluff articles like [26] to feature articles in international papers like [27] to people complaining about the fact they're held at Wembley like [28] to the fact there was a third-fourth place game for a few years (which has its own article), there's no reason why the semi-finals aren't independently notable on their own. This isn't an article about the FA Cup where we say, "let's have an article about semifinals!" Who played in them and where they played isn't "bloat" for a moment, considering this is the most important domestic knockout cup in the world. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above justified a "keep" opinion on the grounds that semi-finals get exposure when smaller clubs defeat bigger ones. I'd claim that so-called "giant killings" occur more often in earlier rounds of the F.A. Cup competition historically than in later ones, such as the final or the semi-finals. So, on the basis of that viewpoint and yours, what about a Wikipedia article about the F.A. Cup 6th Round Stage? Or even the 5th Round? Colchester became front page news in England when they knocked out Leeds in the 5th round in 1971. People still talk about it. But the notoriety (and the notability) concerns that game and the games per se and the Cup competition as such; not some "semi final" category. The competition does not have a "play off" period, like some sports leagues have, in which case we would have a separate article. -The Gnome (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man, unfortunately. The semifinals are notable because of sources that talk about the semifinals as a distinct category, whether it be where they should be held to stattos keeping records [29]. My viewpoint does not extend to the quarterfinal rounds or below since they are not notable as a category, though I did make the point earlier if those rounds were somehow notable through the sources for whatever reason, I would vote to keep them. Notable underdog runs to the quarterfinals may be a notable category for another list. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we disagree - but what exactly was the argument I falsely claimed was yours and then argued against it? Claiming the other side engages in straw man argumentation is serious. -The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm with the Gnome, and frankly, the notion that there are "unique" aspects about semi-finals is complete nonsense. The way to handle "ridiculous bloat" isn't to create kneejerk content forks. It's to cut the bloat. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a spin-off article of FA Cup, and as noted, there is more than enough WP:MILL coverage to meet the letter of GNG. I think this needs to be handled by "common sense", rather than by weighing rules that give conflicting results. Should the "List of FA Cup semi-finals" table be on Wikipedia in any form? If so, this article has to exist. If not, the remaining content here should probably be merged to an article on the structure of the FA Cup in general. I'm not entirely sure what "5th round" means here, and it's not entirely clear where that would be explained beyond the per-year articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:GNG; should be renamed List of FA Cup semi-finals in my view, however. Nomination appears to be more WP:TRIGGERED more than anything.

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.