Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deybi Flores

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. I'm willing to userfy this upon request. Nakon 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deybi Flores[edit]

(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 based on an unsupported claim to general notability and speculation as to future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in what way User:Sir Sputnik is listing a source [1] defined as an unsupported claim. It's clearly a supported claim - whether you agree with the claim or not is another matter, but it seems highly disingenuous and prejudiced to claim there was no support of the claim! Furthermore speculation about his inevitable future appearance was justification that article should be moved to Draft Space rather than deleted. Why didn't you simply move it to Draft Space? Nfitz (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided does not, in my opinion, support the claim to notability, not least of all because one source is never sufficient to establish general notability. I did not mean to imply that there was no attempt to support the claim, but rather that the attempt to do so failed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not then simply move the article to Draft space? It's the perfect candidate, given his current status. Probably won't start within days or weeks (unlike some unfortunate nominations of recently-signed 3rd level USL players). But likely in better standing with the team, given he hasn't been sent to the USL squad. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Not keen on moving to draftspace as I do not think we want to encourage an environment whereby people can freely create as many articles on non-notable players they like and keep them in draft in perpetuity. Draftspace should be used for drafting articles on already notable subjects, not as a holding pen in anticipation of notability which might never come. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - no sign of him sitting on the bench. Though I would be surprised if he is loaned to Whitecaps FC 2 which has only 10 players currently. Either way, there's no clear path yet so let's put the article in draft space where it can be prepared and moved over when he makes a fully professional appearance. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2015 (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.