Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Osano

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. --Angelo 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Osano[edit]

Delete never played at professional level. Jonesy702 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one must go very soon, because we cannot have players who havn't played professional football on wikipedia, I'm very suprised that the maker of this article hasn't deleted this already, as he is well aware what meets the standards of wikipedia. Stew jones 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The player has made two appearances for Reading, a Premier League team, in the FA Cup, the world's most prestigious domestic cup competition. I think that's notable enough, don't you? - PeeJay 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, but others don't as per the dicussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Anaclet. WikiGull 11:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is that this guy is a professional, and played in the FA Cup whilst with a Premiership side. Of course I understand that amateurs play in the FA Cup too, and so that's not enough to make them notable, but they usually make their appearances in the first round, and earlier. Anyway, I know you agree with me, so we'll have to save this discussion for another time. - PeeJay 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep playing competitive football for a premiership team should be enough; it's an over-literal interpretation of the rules if it doesn't. ArtVandelay13 10:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An FA Cup appearance in the 3rd Round for a Premiership or Championship team makes him notable in my opinion. Players have been kept in the past for making a single appearances in League Two, surely playing in the FA Cup for a Premiership team is more notable? Dave101→talk 10:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the consensus is that if you play in any first-team competition with a professional team, you satisfy WP:BIO. So playing in the FA Cup (a first-team competition) with Reading (a professional team) clearly satisfies that. ugen64 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is borderline, I think. As there are no guidelines for cup competitions only, one has to make a judgement call on notability. On the one hand, he has never played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO, on the other he has played for a Premiership team in the FA Cup. There again, the grand total of his appearances amount to 14 24 mins as he appeared as substitute in the 107 min. (in extra time) in one game and the 89 min. in the other. I feel the fact that he has played for a Premiership first team to be an argument with some weight to it but the amount of playing time does not suggest any long term notability in my view hence my weak delete. I am of course happy to go with the consensus here, which seems to me in any case to be leaning towards keep. --Malcolmxl5 23:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those appearances total 14 minutes, surely....? ChrisTheDude 07:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Back to school, I go. ;-) --Malcolmxl5 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FA Cup appearances for a Premier League side make him notable enough. Simon KHFC 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that playing for a Premier League team in the FA is sufficient grounds for notability. Robotforaday 00:11, 17 October 2007 (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.