Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Cárcamo

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. There is rough consensus that the subject does not meet the requirements of FOOTY, so that leaves the GNG argument. A list of sources is presented, and a list of arguments for why these sources don't add up to the significant coverage required by the GNG. These arguments are not refuted, and perusing them shows that indeed many cases are mere mentions, or not mentions at all, or indexes of articles that contain the name. So it must be delete. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Cárcamo

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

Relisting: Was nominated recently as second article in a single nomination and got completely ignored both by the comments and by the closing admin, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Júnior Padilla. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league and has not played in a FIFA sanctioned senior international match. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments in the earlier AFD, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG - as identified in the previous AfD, [1] [2] [3] [4] ~~[5]~~ [6] [7]. Also [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

WP:GNG is met, WP:NFOOTY doesn't need to be The FAQ on WP:SPORTS states "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist".Becky Sayles (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Becky Sayles: thank you for the links. I had not checked those links during the last AFD because a better reason to keep the other article was already posted and I assumed the links were about the other article. I have checked the links you provided (note link 5 is about the other article), and agree that there is enough to fulfill WP:GNG. Since there are other delete votes, I cannot widraw the nomination, but I am changing to neutral. All the best, Taketa (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. There are a lot of links above, but there are major problems with almost all of them. Mainly concerning their breivty, the fact that they are simply WP:ROUTINE match reporting where the player v briefly describes a match, are simply links to searches for the name or do not discuss the player in any real detail at all. To deal with them in order:

[18] - an interview of reasonable length, could with other links indicate GNG.

[19] - routine match reporting / speculation, this is about an upcoming match not the player in question.

[20] - This is about Junior Padilla, a completely different player.

[21] - a couple of brief quotes from the player. Nothing actually about him, just him commenting on his team. No GNG here.

[22] - the same link as number 2, cannot be used twice!

[23] - v brief comments by the player himself on his own fitness. No real substance to the article.

[24] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.

[25] [26] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.

[27] - This is a mtach report from the Motagua v Real Sociadad match. This is not about the player in question at all. He is mentioned only as a part of a wider whole in a routine match report.

[28] - Briefly mentions Carcamo, but actually about another GK, John Bodden in the main.

[29] - Thisi s the same link as number one so cannot be used again.

[30] - This is not an article about the player, he is merely mentioned as one of many in a poll to see who should be thee national keeper. other players get far more prominance in this article.

[31] - five line routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.

[32] - Routine match report, player mentioned v briefly to say he had a bad start.

[33] - routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.

[34] - the same link as number 2 and 6, cannot be used three times.

Aside from the fact that five of the links are repeats of only two separate articles, bar the first link provided, everything else is routine match reports, brief quotes or links to searches for the name. It is clear that this person is a regular player for a team, it is far from clear that there is significant coverage of the player in detail. Where the player is not the subject of the article, the mentions of him are exactly of the trivial sort GNG explicitly forbids. @Taketa: you might like to have another look at these? Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read spanish so dept is hard to judge. I was mostly going on the second, but considering your input I will remain neutral. Taketa (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with User:Fenix down's analysis. A bombardment of low quality sources doesn't push this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I have no idea why we are here, again. There's very frequent coverage of him in the Honduran media, and over the years various articles that meet WP:GNG such as [35], [36] Nfitz (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NFOOTBALL may actually be satisfied. Cárcamo plays for C.D. Real Sociedad, which is in Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras which was previously on WP:FPL. It was removed from the list, not for failing to be fully professional, but because the source cited did not explicitly identify it as such. Spanish Wikipedia seems to say that as its name suggests it is fully professional. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:40, 18 November 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.