Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derlis Ortiz

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derlis Ortiz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Towards the end of his footballing career, Ortiz was the subject of an article covering his hairdressing business ([1]). This single article isn't enough to satisfy the GNG, and the only other online English and Spanish-language coverage is routine/trivial. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article establishes noteability, and he had a not-short career in Paraguay with plenty of secondary coverage, mentioned probably a hundred plus times here for example.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I am seeing there is passing mentions in match reports. Could you please highlight one or two instances of significant coverage? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and recent expansion. There are sources like [2] among many many other sources. Played 50+ games in fully pro Paraguay and Chile top flights in a fully pro career lasting over 10 years. In addition, having played in 2000s and early 2010s, there is deifneitly offline coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we need more than assertions of other sources, and vague waves at search results and imaginary offline coverage. This is a player from the internet age, so if sources exist anywhere, there will be some online. I'm not seeing evidence that significant coverage exists, beyond one human interest piece about a footballers diversion into hairdressing – unfortunately, given the nature of this article, this cannot be used as an indicator that more sources exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only good piece of significant coverage I can see is the one identified and acknowledged by the nominator. Got some sources that demonstrate notability? Happy to take a look and reconsider if so. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Spanish speakers. Does the audio version of this 2008 ABC story about Derlis Ortiz say more than the text? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like gibberish to me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an automated reading of the entire page (as it originally existed) with headlines, weather, etc. Once you get to about the last minute, the article is read (nothing new at all compared to the text). Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage beyond this hairdressing stuff. Ovinus (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC due to lack of significant coverage. Lots of mentions, but all but one source are just passing mentions in sports reporting or database entries. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only reason we have an article on someone in the first place is because they played a sport professionally, but the only nontrivial coverage of them is in a completely different mundane context and doesn't meet GNG, then further GNG-meeting coverage of the subject should not be presumed. JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The Extra article is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:20, 3 October 2022 (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.