Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Cotulio Bossa

Matheus Cotulio Bossa

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article still fails WP:GNG. While it technically passes WP:NSPORT, let's apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. Playing a grand total of one minute in a regional league doesn't make him any more notable than before the last deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- most importantly fails WP:GNG, and one minute on the field as a professional is not enough. Giant Snowman 10:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but feel free to receate when sufficient coverage in reliable sources is available. Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails WP:GNG. Playing for an amazing 60 seconds in a fully professional league doesn't grant notability. – Kosm1 fent 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when he passes WP:NFOOTBALL there is no need to pass WP:GNG. And if we apply WP:COMMONSENSE - this article is about a young footballer who recently made his debut in a WP:FPL, it's not like it's a article about a retired footballer who played a total of 60 seconds in a WP:FPL throughout his career. Those 60 seconds is just the beginning of the rest of his career. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire, GNG prevails over NFOOTY. The latter guideline assumes that the subject meets GNG without the need to look for sources. In fact, NFOOTY itself states: "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.". However, if it's shown that the subject has not received such coverage (which makes sense, 60 seconds is far too little time for someone to attract media attention), then the article may well be deleted. Of course, I don't think anyone objects to recreation once he gets more playing time, we just feel it's too soon now. – Kosm1 fent 09:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I remember correctly, there were another deletion discussion not long ago, where WFC nominated another footballer for deletion as he only had played 1 match, but the closing admin stated that when WP:NFOOTBALL is met, there is no need to meet WP:GNG, but I can't find that deletion discussion (only found this one, which is more or less the same as this one). Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's correct. It's generally understood that if WP:NFOOTY is met then the player can be presumed notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate being notified of this discussion, and out of courtesy I will not explicitly !vote in this discussion. The AfD in question was of Adam Thompson, who has since gone on to establish notability beyond doubt by playing a lot of league games and international football. If I remember correctly, the closing admin has since left the project under a cloud.
        Either way, it has since been clarified that the GNG does apply to everything in NSPORTS, and that while NSPORTS is considered a good indicator, it is not an automatic free pass to an article. "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." NFOOTY is simply intended as a starting point – if a player meets NFOOTY, then it is considered likely that the coverage is out there to meet the GNG. But it goes without saying that the more borderline the case, the more convincing the GNG argument needs to be. —WFC— 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFOOTY is the sensible way to go when it comes to players from a football-crazy country who play for a team with a 40,000 capacity stadium. If they played in England for Chelsea (for example), would they receive enough media coverage to push them past GNG? Almost certainly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If he played for Chelsea, maybe he would. But he doesn't play for Chelsea, and his appearance during injury time didn't gather significant media coverage. So he doesn't deserve an article. – Kosm1 fent 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject has appeared in two fully professional league games thus far (for the reigning Brazilian champions), meeting WP:NFOOTY ("Players who have appeared... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable") and is a winner of the Copa São Paulo de Futebol Júnior.
Also, inaccurate nomination. Where does it say the subject has played only 60 seconds...? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. You'll see that he entered the pitch in the 91st minute. If it's not one minute he played, it may be two. But that's not the point. – Kosm1 fent 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]