Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro

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. Technically passes NFOOTY, but consensus is that this is insufficient when the player clearly fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Glauver Aranha Pinheiro

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Glauver Aranha Pinheiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Footballer who seemingly fails both WP:NFOOTY and GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep/Delete - Looks like the player featured once for NK Inter Zaprešić in the 2007–08 Croatian First Football League, a league listed over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Footbal Database backs that up. Delete is right given past consensus - which was helpfully brought to my attention by Jogurney below. Hopefully things can be a little more clearer in the future. R96Skinner (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete He may have played a Prva Liga match, but it's barely verifiable: [1]. His 20 minutes at Poljud may pass WP:FOOTY, but I believe this is otherwise a directory entry which completely fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk
• Delete - article about a semi-pro footballer who may have played one match in a fully-pro league. I can barely find any coverage of this footballer outside of routine match reports from his play in semi-pro leagues. Not enough here to satisfy NFOOTBALL or GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I respect what the above editors have said, certainly see where they are coming from, but I feel the current system needs a larger discussion somewhere else rather than on a specific AfD. I understand the whole argument of NFOOTY being secondary to GNG and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is an essay - completely correct. However, that doesn't stop the fact that articles are being judged firmly on NFOOTY during AfDs currently. This brings inconsistency, which isn't good. For example, if this AfD ends in delete it won't change anything on the wider scale; very similar articles will still come and go, with some being deleted and some being kept. I don't feel like this should be the case, consistency should be key surely? R96Skinner (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a well-established consensus that an article on a footballer who has only played a handful of minutes in a fully-pro league (as Pinheiro may have), doesn't meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Gaffney - which contains links to several earlier AfDs reaching the same conclusion. Jogurney (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that AfD - appreciate you linking that. Still feel the way things currently are leads itself to inconsistency, a full set of definitive guidelines would be preferred other past consensus that (please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't listed anywhere clear so, evidently, gets lost as time goes by. At the moment, to any new editor, it just looks like NFOOTY is enough - which isn't helpful. Probably is a semi-unusual situation as most articles in question would have played multiple matches or none at all, but it still would be nice to have an easy to find guideline that gives a definitive answer - not: may/may not, is/isn't unless etc. R96Skinner (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I think it would be helpful to have a listing of Football-related AfD consensus decisions like this somewhere - possibly linked at WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
        • That would a good idea. I'll ask others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football when I have time, nice to have other voices involved. Consistency and clarity can only be a positive thing. R96Skinner (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who had a backlog of footballer article to be reviewed by the creator (myself). I would say it is wrong to consider professional debut as an on/off switch for WP:notability. Some footballer did not pass WP:NFOOTBALL but still have routine coverage on transfer to another club. If those article did not existed, then it clearly fails WP:GNG. I don't comment on how many article and how "in-depth" to qualify WP:GNG, but in Glauver Aranha Pinheiro's case, currently the wiki article did not have any article including news article about his transfer, or around anything about him. Matthew_hk tc 16:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see the logic in keeping this over NFooty, it shouldn't supersede GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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