Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Cedeño

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 both. The only keep argument amounts to WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Cedeño[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidlines as per WP:ATHLETE; he has never played at the professional level. Digirami (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

~~Keep~~ Delete Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding something here, but the player is listed on the current roster of Barcelona Sporting Club, which is (if the article on the club can be relied upon) a professional club. I will check back in on this though because I'm not entirely familiar with professional football and want to make sure I'm evaluating this properly. I'm going to hop over to the AfD for Pablo Espinoza and espouse the same opinion there. Seeing as this AfD is apparently for both players, my opinion here applies to both, pending someone else coming in and telling me that my understanding of what constitutes professional football is off-target!
Changing vote to delete per nominator's helpful clarification below, regarding actual playing time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this link is to the current team's roster (my ability to interpret written Spanish is amateurish at best), then my vote changes rather swiftly to a delete, and I promptly head over to the Barcelona Sporting Club article and revise the current player list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The basis for the squad list is probably this, FEF's list of player registered to play for Barcelona this year (you may need to choose Barcelona S.C. from the pull-down menu). Under a new regulation for 2010, every team in Ecuador must use an under-19 player in each game. Carlos Cedeño & Pablo Espinoza are two of those under-19 players Barcelona has listed as eligible to play for them in 2010. But, according to the respective player cards (Cedeño & Espinoza), which are updated weekly, they have yet to appear/compete as a professional (see the line listed as "MAYORES"). They have only competed in the reserve tournament. Digirami (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – Neither has played in a professional match, failing WP:ATHLETE, and there is no evidence of general notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I believe that the page should remain because they have been called to the first team according to the web page FEF that digirami has given, so at any moment any of those two could jump to the field. Also I was doing a little research online and found something interesting, Pablo Espinoza was in the bench when Barcelona play against Olmedo on February 28, 2009 and he cursed out the referee and was given a red card. Pablo Espinoza hasn't started on the majors but was given a red card......[http://www.eluniverso.com/2010/03/01/1/1372/barcelona-sigue-invicto-altura.html or [http://www.razaamarilla.com/barcelona-sporting-club/eduardo-maruri-%E2%80%9Cemelec-es-un-equipo-durisimo%E2%80%9D/ Masterman will (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they fail WP:ATHLETE. Airplaneman ^talk 18:49, 19 March 2010 (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.