Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Adolfo González

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Adolfo González

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page indicates he spent 2 years with Cortuluá. Other sources seem to show 4 years. This Columbian side was in the top league, listed in WP:FPL during part of that time. If he appeared, he meets WP:FPL but I don't know a good source for 10-year old Columbian match reports. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: or @Digirami: are good for finding sources for South American players. If one can be found which verifies this claim to notability then please ping me back so I can re-review. Giant Snowman 18:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any mentions of González in the Colombian press during 2003 or 2004 when he was apparently on the books of Cortuluá. As a young goalkeeper, it is likely he never made the first team during this time, so I'm not terribly surprised. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the former... The full name of the league he currently play in the "Segunda Division Profesional," indicating that he plays in a professional league where according to the league guidelines "must have a written contract showing all agreements, on the deadline, economic and other conditions that establish mutual agreement" (roughly translated from Google because it's Saturday and I'm too lazy) (Guidelines, Chapter III, at the end of chapter 7). Digirami (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but that doesn't mean that the league is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does not mean it is not. Sure does look like one to me. Digirami (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that does not matter, if it is not on the FPL list then there is no consensus that it is. The FPL list by definition operates on an inclusive basis. The comment from league guidelines about a contract does not indicate FPL status in any way. A contract would be necessary even if the player was not getting paid by the club to deal with registration, transfers, image rights, etc. Also the presence of a contract does not mean a player is earning enough for it to be his sole source of income.

Comment - Then how do you determine that? Do you ask every player individually to see if they make enough off football to make it their sole source of income? If football being the sole source of income is the only criteria to determine FPL, then would that not exclude a lot of famous players because football is not their sole source of income (they have endorsement contracts and what not). The way I see it, you also need evidence to prove this player is not in a professional league. Absent of that, you'll have to take everything else at face value. If the governing body of the sport in that country says he plays in a professional football league, I'll back it to say it is fully pro. Whether the guy is famous/known enough to merit an article is a different story. Digirami (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether you back it to be fully pro or not is irrelevant, as I am sure you well know. WP is based on consensus and verifiability, that is why the FPL list is as it is with sources for all the fully pro leagues. Currently this league is not on it so it is not considered by consensuis fully pro. If you have sources that you believe indicate that it is fully pro, please start a discussion at WT:FOOTY, I am more than happy to support the inclusion of more leagues if they can be shown to be fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both these players do not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 20 February 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.