Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitor Coutinho Flora

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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Coutinho Flora

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

Contested prod on the grounds that the player does meet NFOOTY however, this was never in question. The original prod was made on the grounds that although sources provided indicate a solitary substitute appearance in a fully professional league, the player has since played only in minor or semi-professional leagues. As such, and as always, the subject specific guideline is trumped by GNG. I can find nothing of any detail on his career in either Brazil or Latvia, where in both instances he seems to have a bit part player that would begin to satisfy GNG, nor anything to support the claim in the article that he played more than once for Botafogo.

Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Given that this article fails WP:GNG comprehensively and only barely passes WP:NSPORT, it falls under the clause in that guidelines lede that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG; clear consensus at AFD that scraping through WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough. Giant Snowman 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and yet we usually undelete previously deleted articles when the player DOES play in a single game. Not sure why a single game for a youngster then is an issue. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Botafogo-SP by playing in the Campeonato Paulista Série A1 a fully professional league as per this.He has played in Latvia top league for FK Daugava Rīga in the 2014 Latvian Higher League and also played in the UEFA Europa League against Aberdeen F.C. as per this and this .Now if he was retired or injured ,I may have agreed but the subject is only 25 and has a had decent career including playing in the top tier of Latvian Football with a couple of International cup appearances and in lower divisions in Brazil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Pharaoh of the Wizards: As I noted above, NFOOTY is irrelevant when the player has only played once in an FPL, particularly when it was four years ago. Playing in the Latvian top league does not confer notability as it is not fully pro and his appearance in the Europa league also do not count as firstly, they were not between teams from FPLs, nor were they in the competition proper, but the qualifying rounds. I am not sure you have fully understood the points being made above, this is not a question about whether a subject meets an article specific guideline, there is no question in that, the question is whether he meets the more important GNG. To claim notability you need to be showing significant non-routine coverage of the player. Fenix down (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've created many an article after a single game in a FPL. Many examples are given above ... but going through them, they all appear to be for players who are older, often whose careers are over ... though it is difficult to check given the articles are gone. Is there an example of a player of similar age? Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of the relevance of the age point you are making. This is a discussion about GNG. The player in question here is sourced as having played one FPL game four years ago. GNG always trumps subject specific guidelines and without that single appearance the player would appear not to satisfy any guidlines. Can you provide sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Qualifies for WP:NFOOTBALL as having played a match in a professional league, and having also played in the UEFA Europa League which is a professional tournament. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is clear consensus that GNG trumps subject specific guidelines when the subject has played only a handful of FPL games (and his Europa League appearances were in the first qualifying round - at no point is that considered fully professional). This discussion isn't about NFOOTBALL, there is no question he passes that, it is about whether this player passers GNG, which is more important. Can you indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG trumps SNG. However, when an SNG is met, we can presume sources exist to satisfy GNG. Unless that presumption is rebutted it should be keep.RonSigPi (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing WP:NSPORT, no matter how slim the margin, gives the subject of an article a presumption of notability. That shifts the burden to the editors that think the article should be deleted (if such a shift didn't occur, then there would be no point to SNGs). While it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., that sources don't exist), editors wanting deletion must do more work than a mere 5 minute Google search - they must show that a full effort was made to find sources. In view of WP:BIAS, it would be challenging for English speaking editors that do not live in Brasil or Latvia to truly evaluate sources. This differs, for example, from the Scott Sinclair (referenced above) where it is a lot easier for English speakers to try and find sources. Unless multiple editors fluent in Portuguese and Latvian perform truly detailed searches (more than the first few pages from Google), then I don't think the presumption is invalidated and we presume WP:GNG is met. Again, the community has set WP:NFOOTY and we should respect the standard they set until shown in this case the standard is not valid. RonSigPi (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This young player does meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and still has a long career ahead of him. The "examples" of other cases where the article has been deleted are not comparable, as noted above. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources provided by Pharaeo of the Wizards show that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL Atlantic306 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (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.