Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Garduño

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. The strongest argument on the keep side is that these players have all played in one of two professional leagues, and that is sufficient to meet

WP:FOOTY

. On the other side of the fence, I was particularly unimpressed with the argument that stubs are inherently bad because they confuse the search engines.

On balance, while the head-count numbers are pretty close, the better arguments are on the keep side, enough so that I'm calling this a consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Garduño

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

Fails

WP:NFOOTY. This user is notorious for making these types of quick, dime by the dozen articles on Mexican footballers. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are players also in the third division that fail the same criteria. JTtheOG (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

)

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles fail
WP:GNG by a mile.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all - Sources listed in all of these articles confirm that they have all played either in
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If they're not notable, of course delete. If they are, delete per WP:TNT. Such tinily stubby articles are more of a harm than a help: they turn links blue (so it's not obvious that articles are needed), and they produce tons of Wikipedia-related hits in search engines, making it significantly harder to find good sources. If they were at all useful, this wouldn't matter, but these pages are so minimal that they won't help the reader. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As
  WP:TNT should apply to these types of articles. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep all - as they all meet
WP:BEFORE? Giant Snowman 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Not sure why we are here if even the nominator agrees they meet
WP:TNT could ever apply to a stub. Articles need improving. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - While I am skeptical of the treatment of
WP:BEFORE), I am willing to reconsider (especially if particular articles are nominated individually). Jogurney (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete All - Per nom. Although this user does create some articles of players that should have one, it does create many for players that shouldn't have one. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 02:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all passes
WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if these articles satisfy the notability or not, but with the exception of Ernest Nungaray they are some of the worst footballing articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Most articles consist of a general reference and a short sentence and that's about it. If these articles pass this AFD than they will all should be vastly improved. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - articles are as porr as they can get but the sourcing indicates NFOOTY is met. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 15 January 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.