Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The arguments that he had never played at the highest level of his sport were very convincing. Therefore the community feels he fails WP:ATHLETE. Further, the comments indicating that his lack of professional (or notable) activities reduces his notability below the threshold of WP:N and WP:BIO were also convincing. Should additional offline citations be verified as having notability outside of his perceived athletic potential, the article could be recreated. MBisanz talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Pacheco

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dani Pacheco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Yes, this has been deleted before, but with a recent confusion over a singer with the (virtually) same name was recreated. This version is better referenced and may meet notability guidelines. However, the references all confirm that he is a youth player, and he has not played in the first team, so appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet competed at the highest pro level.

Nominating to get a clear community consensus, so we can hopefully put this to bed, one way or the other. --Ged UK (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination cannot be withdrawn so long as there are users who have !voted to delete the article. I'm about to look at the article and see what the new sources bring to the table. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only has the extent of coverage in the sources been expanded, but one of the sources revealed that he played for the Spanish national under-17 team. That pushes him over the top of the notability hurdle in my mind. (Further, the source says he got a hat trick in the U-17 match.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Playing national under-age football doesn't generally automatically confer notability, especially U-17. Many U-17s will disappear off the map. U-21s perhaps, but by that age players are generally playing League football at least semi-regularly. --Ged UK (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Representation at national level in youth competition is not notability - even if he scores hat-tricks. He needs to play in a proper notable match, at least once. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable youth player. No substantial coverage other than in local paper. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is substantial coverage in El Mundo and EFE—it's not just passing mentions—and those are not local papers. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea how substantial the coverage in either of those two references is, as I cannot see them. The EFE one at least mentions him by name in the headline, so may be substantial, but the El Mundo may be just a throwaway mention of his name for all I know. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you do not look up the articles yourself, then I suppose it comes down to whether you trust me when I tell you that the articles discuss Pacheco in sufficient depth. I've brought up the El Mundo article from my library's database again. It would have helped if I had provided the entire headline, which I had truncated because it was so long. Here it is: "Un madridista 'robado' al Barcelona: Dani Pacheco, Malagueño, 17 años, debuta con el Liverpool «Hemos empezado a ver su talento», dice Benitez «Es un sueño», afirma el". The article is about how a talent scout system in England is poaching Spanish youth players away from their home country, with Pacheco being discussed as the prime example (others are listed, but his is the only story actually laid out). The story is about 1000 words, six paragraphs. Paragraphs two through six of the story discuss Pacheco. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I see it, he will fail Athlete at the moment, the question should be does he pass Notability, which is a more important criterion. --Ged UK (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Having failed WP:Athlete. I am concerned about those citations, the article has too many citations, and you can not cross verify them in the current format they are in. As only two lead off to the web. The citations don't link to the actual websites of those media companies and haven't used the web articles, which is normally duplicated on the web for local media. In many ways the citations have WP:Bio fails. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can verify non-Internet citations. It might involve a trip to a library. (Sorry if that sounds a bit snarky, but I was not sure how else to put it.) "The sources are not available on the web" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Please clarify if I have misunderstood what you are saying. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:N suggesting sufficient sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are sources but none of them indicate that he has done anything notable enough to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. If/when he plays for the first team at a professional club he should get an article, creating one now is just crystal balling that he is going to have a successful career as a footballer. King of the North East 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are confusing Notability with Fame and importance. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not, I could find hundreds of external links for a Romeo Beckham or David Banda article because loads of journalists have nothing better to do that write about the children of the famous, just as loads of sports journalists have nothing better to do than write about a footballer that has never even played a fully competitive game. He clearly fails to meet the notability criteia expected of sportsmen, and to keep him for the existence of some sources means that if he fails to play at professional level we will be stuck with an article about a footballer that never even played football. King of the North East 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Persuasively put. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is not a content criterion. The Core content policies are Verifiability, Neutral Point-of-View, and No Original Research. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do overlay these with commonsense, for example, precluding articles on the infant children of monarchs or prime ministers, about whom reams of material are written in RS. This is another example - lots of coverage of non notable competition. Much like my local paper prints masses about 12 year old swimmers who do well in the national trials for their age. They're not notable. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commonsense, yes. Importance, no. If there are enough reliable sources to write a verifiable, NPOV article, then it is valid for inclusion. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N clearly satisfied. For those who were unable to read the El Mundo article, I have located a copy of it on their web site and added the link to the reference. It is clearly a non-trivial reliable source reference, along with a number of the others, clearly meating WP:N. Failure to also meet WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Angelo has already quoted the relevant part of WP:N here - "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability". Although sources do exist, they do not establish his notability as he has actually acheived nothing of note (simply signing for a top club isn't enough here). He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play a first team match at a full professional level, and playing in youth internationals does not confer notability neither. Bettia (rawr!) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced by the sources, which by and large use speculation about what Pachuco might become rather than what he actually is. For example the Liverpool Daily Post ref says "As will continue to be said for the foreseeable future there is still a long, long way to go before Pacheco can make the step up from warm up games to the real thing". The El Mundo ref basically says that Liverpool have dozens of youth players from around Europe, several reserves are Spanish, Pachuco is one of the better ones. Most of the references for things other than birthdate etc. are about reserve matches. Reserve matches receive limited coverage in the local press, but rarely further afield, and to regard it as significant coverage is stretching it. The Liverpool Echo reports on Prescot Cables matches too, but that doesn't mean their players are notable. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article are enough to meet our general notability guideline. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping this article would open the floodgates to thousands of articles about footballers who have never played at a professional level. Every local newspaper in Britain has in depth coverage of non-league teams in their area. I could write articles about dozens of Whitehill Welfare, Edinburgh University and Spartans players on the basis of what is reported on at least one page of the Edinburgh Evening News six days a week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's amazing that WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN are attacked from one side by editors that claim WP:N should override them under any circumstances, (no matter whether the subject is a child that has never played a full game or a semi-pro/amateur footballer that actually earns his living as a postman) and from the other side that claim that these guidelines are far to lax and that it is a travesty that their beloved encyclopaedia hosts 20,000 odd biographies of professional footballers. King of the North East 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't! Bettia (rawr!) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is not a content criterion. There must simply be sufficient reliable sources for a Verifiable, NPOV, No original research article. WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are tools to suggest whether there may be sufficient sources when they are not already present. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dani_Pacheco_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136112816"