Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erick Marín

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Marín

(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 on contested based on the assertion that the Costa Rican top flight is fully pro, an assertion that failed to garner consensus when presented at WT:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I can find in online Costa Rican sources is routine (e.g., match reports). I don't think this article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while there was discussion at WP:FPL about the professionality of the Costa Rican top flight, consensus was not gained that it was either professional, or not, and remains unlisted in either category. However, [1] is quite clear about the professionality of the league. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, as has been made clear to you on several occasions now, the WP:FPL list is considered an inclusive list for NFOOTY purposes; i.e. if a club is on the FPL list it is deemed fully pro, if it is not, for the time being it is not. You are also aware of what to do if you believe a league is fully pro that is not on the list and that WT:FOOTY is the correct arena so all project members can discuss, not a random AfD. Secondly, whilst your source is indicative of FPl status, I note that it is from an article that is nearly 15 years. I would like to see more recent sources indicating a continuing FPL status. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of inclusion at WP:FPL does not mean the league is not fully professional. If it did, then WP:FPL would never get longer ... and yet it does. We have evidence that the league is fully professional, and not one shred of evidence has ever been provided that it isn't. As such, it would be reckless to delete articles on the basis that the league isn't fully professional when all evidence is to the contrary. Costa Rica has a major league, consistently ranked 3rd on the continent after Mexico and the USA, and yet we have no problem accepting Honduras as fully professional (who rank behind Guatemala, El Salvador, and even Panama, which we know isn't fully professional). Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as you have been told several times now, including in this discussion. A random AfD is not the place to start a discussion, WT:FOOTY is so all project members can take part, not just those involved here, as any decision would have consequences far beyond this particular article. Again, as stated many times to you before, just because a league is not on the list does not mean it is not FPL, merely that consensus has not been reached that it is. The standard position of WP:FOOTY is that until such consensus is achieved, the default position is that a league is not FPL. The ranking of a nation is irrelevant, the only relevant issue is has consensus been reached amongst editors, it is not for you to determine your own notability, nor is it for any of us. It is becoming tiresome to have to constantly explain this simple argument to you time and again. If you believe you have evidence that a league is FPL, please start a discussion on the relevant league(s) at WT:FOOTY. If you have sufficient, reliable evidence then the leagues will be added to the list. YOu have been requested to do this before, but I have not yet seen you actually start a thread (though I may well have missed it). Finally, you may wish to redact your claim of "proof" that the league is FPL. One 15 year old article added to your objective conjecture above is unlikely to be considered sufficient. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:24, 23 March 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.