Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dang Van Lam

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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Van Lam

(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 without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user:HitroMilanese did contest the PROD with a reason: that the Lao Premier League was indeed fully professional. L.tak (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I contested PROD. I gave reason in my Edit Summary. Hitro talk 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTBALL. The Lao Premier League is not fully pro. Even if it was, he still would've failed because he hasn't made a league appearance. More importantly, he fails WP:GNG because he has not received any significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then our article on the league is also incorrect (but then: it is not cited at all). User:Mikemor92, Do you have a ref for the this assertion so i) the Lao Premier League article can be corrected and ii) I have some information whether I should suggest "keep" or "delete"? L.tak (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find third party sources to suggest that the Leo PL is fully pro, then start a discussion on the talk page of WP:FPL which has the list of fully pro leagues (supported by references) and there's also a list of leagues that aren't fully pro. – Michael (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I'll update the article accordingly. As you can see from my previous comment, my question was a question, not an assertion; I have no particular interest in the outcome of this AfD, just want to get the data on the table..… L.tak (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence the Lao Premier League is a WP:FPL, meaning it currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. Giant Snowman 12:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. The interview to a Russian media outlet is insufficient for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GiantSnowman's arguements. Finnegas (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the general notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This guy does not seem notable at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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