Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulhão

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. While this looks like a keep/N/C the delete !votes have policy with them Star Mississippi 03:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tulhão

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

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

Subject is an amateur footballer with close to no professional career experience. He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV - nothing more than the usual stuff of transfer reports, mostly automatically generated and unreliable stats pages and the occasional Facebook post - none of them qualifying as a reliable source. [1] Angelo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable figure in the Italian lower leagues (also has played in Serie C for what it's worth). 2016 interview, 2019 interview, 2022 interview and various general reports on him, just about enough for GNG in my opinion. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the other participants: the user above is the original author of the article. That said, about those three interviews, the first two of them are consequential to the signing of the player by some team (especially the first one). The second one comes from a website that explicitly covers only the fully amateur regional Eccellenza league of Umbria, so I would not define it as a valid source, and both the second and third of those links are just non-significant coverage regarding amateur football. If that is all you can find, I am sorry but these sources just do not turn out to be WP:SIGCOV to me. --Angelo (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to Soccerway, he played professionally in Italian Serie C for some teams. It's on the threshold of notability, but in principle, I don't see why it should be excluded. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact his professional career is limited to six league games, having played professionally does not automatically infer notability anymore. What matters is whether the subject clearly passes WP:GNG through reliable sources or not. Angelo (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must consider that the athlete in question is still active, and the numbers may change during his career. Along this, it is not completely clear that the article falls into WP:GNG, as I said previously, it is on a non-evident threshold. Svartner (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the athlete ever becomes notable in the future, the article can be still recreated. Notability has to be established in the current moment, not based on whether he can become so in the future. As mentioned originally and earlier, WP:GNG is the only criteria to be used, and in this case all I could find was almost exclusively empty mentions and minor articles who are either not independent (transfer reports from clubs/league pages, etc) or do not comply with WP:SIGCOV. Angelo (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I just mentioned this fact, but I didn't base the argument entirely on it. But I think it's plausible to wait a little longer before deleting the article itself. Svartner (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet content requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Player with ongong career with many sources with experience in fully pro Serie C. Article needs improvemewnt, nopt deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources showing significant coverage? Giant Snowman 21:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analyzing the arguments above against our P&Gs, I'm not terribly moved by the keep !votes. Relisting to establish further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; none of the coverage discussed above is from a secondary source or provides in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2023 (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.