Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Pérez (footballer)

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.

Francisco Pérez (footballer)

Francisco Pérez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. FAdesdae378 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he is listed as "Vincente Perez" in the source the OP refers to. But User:EchetusXe has added a few more. StAnselm (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, the added sources look like passing mentions to me. Do you disagree? –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient sourcing already in the article to show notability. GiantSnowman 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, GiantSnowman. Could you please explain which sources provide in-depth coverage of the individual? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you asking only me when others have !voted keep as well? GiantSnowman 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You have said "sufficient sourcing", so I would like to understand what these are. Would you care to answer the question? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keepDraftify - Article about footballer who primarily played in the amateur era of Argentine football, when he was selected to the national team that competed at the 1934 FIFA World Cup finals. I can't locate in-depth coverage in online coverage, but he receives passing mentions, and I think it's reasonable to expect that offline (print) sources in the 1930s will have SIGCOV. Updating because I checked some of his 1934 FIFA World Cup final teammates, and there is online SIGCOV for the more notable ones. I suspect print sources will provide SIGCOV, but nobody here has access to those yet. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Das osmnezz, I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that allows an article to be kept in mainspace with the hope that notability will eventually be demonstrated. That's what draft space is for. Is there a good reason to keep instead of draftify in this instance? –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Every single source in the article is his name in a list or in pure, primary stats. There is not a single source of SIGCOV here, so the article objectively fails our guidelines. The only way a keep !vote in this situation can be valid is if it introduces a source meeting SPORTCRIT #5 or explicitly advances a very strong IAR argument as to why we should expect GNG coverage to exist despite NFOOTY being deprecated precisely because it was a poor predictor of GNG. Otherwise keeps should be disregarded per ROUGHCONSENSUS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear: no one has specifically identified the multiple sources they claim make the subject pass GNG (and in fact most of the keep !votes are pure

  arguments to avoid). Since GNG/SPORTBASIC rejects stats reports, passing mentions, routine coverage, and everything primary or non-independent, we must assume they are referring to sources other than those in the article currently. So what are they? JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I previously did a
  WP:NAC on this as keep. JoelleJay left a message on my talk page asking me to relist, and while I don't see how this could have been closed any other way, given this is a NAC that has been questioned, I'm going to leave this to an admin to close and revert my close. I am not relisting this despite JoelleJay's request to do so, though an admin can at their discretion. As it had already been open seven days when I closed it, I would be OK with an admin closing it at any time, but it's their call to make, not mine. Smartyllama (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  See User talk:Smartyllama#Perez AfD for JoelleJay's message and my response. Smartyllama (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Jogurney and think we should IAR in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this was written by a brand-new editor, it would not pass AfC. Current sources [1][2][3][4][5] merely mention his name and do not provide significant coverage by any stretch. This means that the article fails NSPORTS (which explicitly requires SIGCOV sourcing to be included in the article) as well as GNG. If anyone finds better sourcing or can explain how these sources meet GNG, please ping me and I'll reconsider. Not opposed to Draftify if someone is interested in bringing it up to our standards. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOCALCONSENSUS around this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see anyone saying to keep based on caps. The keep voters are saying to keep per GNG or IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]