Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva (2nd nomination)

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. No consensus ~~to delete.~~ changed reason at 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Malinaccier (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Pereira da Silva[edit]

Confusing back-history to this article perhaps best summarised as follows - it's had some AfD and DRV time and it's all a bit of a mess, so please let's just get this straight this time. By long-established consensus, footballers are not notable until they step foot in earnest on a pitch in any notable competition. Just being a squad member is not sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE and there's no inevitability of any future passing of ATHLETE. And that holds true whether the squad in question is hyped, like Man Utd or, erm, not hyped, like East Stirling. Hence this nom. Dweller (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, I do request that the version currently in place be the one that gets restored if the player does indeed end up becoming notable. – PeeJay 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a sensible idea. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he makes his (long awaited) first-team appearance for Manchester United. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO, which clearly states that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Thus while WP:ATHLETE is sufficient for inclusion, it is not necessary - meeting our general notability standard is also sufficient. With seven independent sources in the article, all of which deal substantively with the player, it seems to me beyond question that this player meets our notability standards - indeed, he does so better than players who have broken into professional first teams such as David Gray (footballer) and Ben Amos. It would be a perverse bit of logic to say that these players, who have made scattered appearances and been the subject of minimal press coverage, are notable because they meet WP:ATHLETE, whereas Fabio da Silva, a player who does not need the wider standards offered by WP:ATHLETE to pass our notability standards, should not be covered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. David Gray has received plenty of media attention in the Scottish press,[1] and also recently since he has been linked with a transfer to Burnley.[2] All of the media coverage for Fabio is shared with his twin brother Rafael, who has made a first team breakthrough. If Fabio were not related to Rafael then his media coverage would be minimal. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if he weren't a football player at all, he wouldn't be notable at all. I am, however, largely disinterested in the possibility of Fabio da Silva's notability in alternate universes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No official senior match appearance. Matthew_hk t c 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player by our standards, who has never made a professional appearance. If he does, then he will merit an article. - fchd (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose we could keep discussing the article until he does appear, and thus solve the problem. But it seems there's been enough press discussion to be appropriate for an article. Judging from the number of times it's being contested here, I am not entirely sure that the Athlete guideline actually has consensus by wikipedians in general. The GNG in saying that 2RS=N, speaks of presumed notability, not certain notability, so I do not see how it can serve as a bright line either positive or negative, just an approximate guide. DGG (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His notability is derived from being a footballer, but he has never played in a senior professional football match. What media coverage there is of him is shared with his presently more notable brother, who has made the Man Utd first team. This is typical of a pattern where players who are the son / brother / nephew of a famous player receive far more media coverage than their talents would otherwise warrant. Therefore notability through media coverage doesn't stand up in my view, and he also fails the secondary criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, most of the coverage was from before either of them played a competitive match. All consensus seems to be that they're equally good players, but one of them has a shoulder injury and the other doesn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet to play a professional game so fails WP:ATHLETE. His only notability is because his brother has played so fails WP:N. Suggest deleting and possibly redirecting to his brother's article or a sub-section of such until he plays. Then it can be created. Peanut4 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, among other things, the interesting quote at the end of the article from the reference "Meet the da Silva twins", that he's one of the best such players according to one person apparently familiar with the sport. No question that he fails WP:ATHLETE, but it definitely seems to me that he's getting enough coverage himself to pass the basic BIO standards. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree with PeeJay that, if he plays in a match and is thus unquestionably notable, we restore this version and add relevant details. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious, through links, that this guy is on the Man U first team. That is a major achievement, and worth noting. Goal2001 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001[reply]

He isn't in the first team, he might be a squad member, but that does not make him notable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Man U's website lists him as being on the first team. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But for WP:ATHLETE first team means actual game time. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE doesn't mention "actual game time," "first team," or anything else. Actually, it just says "professional," which is met by the standard of deriving a sole paycheck from athletics. The layers of unique meanings we are assigning to words in the course of this guideline are problematic, to say the least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE says "who have competed". Fabio is yet to compete in a professionally competitive game. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester United Reserves are, I believe, a fully professional team. They compete in the Premier Reserve League, which is a competitive league with a champion. by playing in a reserves match, he has thus "compete professionally" by any definition of that phrase that has not been extensively twisted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am severely disturbed by the willingness to ignore WP:N in favor of WP:ATHLETE here, especially when WP:ATHLETE specifically says not to do that. It speaks poorly to the quality of our deletion process that even this basic level of care is not taken, in favor of automatic and reflexive use of guidelines that leave no room for context. I hope the closing admin will treat arguments that completely fail to deal with the fact that WP:ATHLETE is not our only notability guideline with appropriate skepticism. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think he passes WP:N. The coverage is because of his brother, who has played for the first team, and not simply because of Fabio, hence why I would set up a redirect to his brother's page until he plays first team action, then this content can be restored. If he never makes the first team or first team anywhere else, then maintain the content on his brother's page. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and that's fine. You're free to disagree with me about WP:N. I'm only irked at arguments that act as though WP:ATHLETE was the only thing at issue. That said, you're wrong about the source of Fabio's notability - the bulk of the articles are about the promise of the two of them. I would say, flat out, that [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8] are all solidly about both of them - most of those were written before Rafael made his first team debut. I think it's more accurate to say that he is notable because of the interest in the prospect of identical twin defenders, and the potential they show. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but one are about either their transfer or a friendly, neither of which passes Wp:ATHLETE, hence as far as I'm concerned is at the moment trivial coverage and so does not pass WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant to judging under WP:N. All of those are articles primarily about the da Silva twins, including Fabio. Under the normal standards of WP:N, that is non-trivial coverage. That we have a spread of several months across the sources is also significant - it shows that this is not a momentary news event, but that there was sufficiently enduring significance that, regardless of what happens to Fabio from here, it will be notable. But I don't see anything in policy that suggests that WP:ATHLETE determines what trivial or non-trivial coverage is for WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jmorrison230582 summed it up perfectly. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played a fully pro game. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of wide interest among sports fans. Yes, I know the Nathan Delfouneso precedent is to delete until he has played one game, but that whole exercise of delete for a few months before an inevitable recreation seems like bureaucracy of the worst possible kind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation is likely, but not inevitable. Plenty of promising youngsters never get to play a professional game through an unlucky injury etc. Which is why we wait for them to cross the whitewash in earnest. Yes, it'll probably happen, but until it does... NB I have two young footballer biogs in my userspace, as I'm waiting for them to appear for Norwich City. They're members of the first team squad, and yes NCFC is less hyped than Man U, but this is a useful, objective, NPOV and reasoned bar for passing ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite not having played a competitive senior game yet, I believe he is notable enough anyway - an exception to the rule. The litmus test for me is that people reading the Rafael Pereira da Silva article are going to want to click on the Fabio link to read about his twin brother who also signed for Manchester United at the same time. Beve (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best idea then would be to include a couple of sentences about Fabio in his brother's article? - fchd (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his first team appearance, and fails WP:N as he has acheived nothing of note so far in his career. Simply being named in a squad isn't enough to establish notability - a number of other players in a similar situation have come to AfD, and (as far as I remember) they have been deleted, and there's no reason why this article should be treated differently simply because he plays for Man U. Delete this article, then recreate it if and when he makes his debut. Bettia (rawr!) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no competitive appearances, no notability. Plain simple. Defining a footballer already notable well before he manages to play in a competitive game is like defining a bookwriter notable well before he publishes his debut novel. --Angelo (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial amount of press coverage indicates notability, per WP:N. JulesH (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of the keep !votes are based on there being a couple of newspaper reports about his transfer to Man U, and therefore this automatically guarantees notability, so here's a few quotes from WP:N which I think are pertinent here: -

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."

Bettia (rawr!) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Though I would argue that, in this case, most of the normal barriers are avoided. This does not open a floodgate of problematic articles - there are few transfers of youth players that will generate headlines like this, and those that do can be covered. The issue here is that two extremely promising players who have the extra interesting angle of being twins both transferred to the prohibitive favorites to be World Champions this year. One of them, Fabio, was the top scorer for his national team in a prominent tournament, and captained the team in that tournament. That's a situation that is above and beyond what WP:ATHLETE normally rejects. As I said above, I think you're hard pressed to argue that Fabio da Silva is less notable in a general, casual sense of the word than Ben Amos, who makes it in under WP:ATHLETE. So I think the presumption of notability holds here, unless there's a better case to be made against inclusion than failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, especially given that WP:ATHLETE explicitly passes the buck on to WP:N. (And thus using it to say that the article doesn't meet WP:N seems to contravene the point of the guideline.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a youth tournament. National representation at youth level is not notability. --Dweller (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:ATHLETE, as he hasn't made a first-team appearance in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player has not played in a fully professional league/highest level and fails WP:ATHLETE. Although the article is well-sourced, the sources indicate the individual has future promise rather than any notable accomplishments to date (U-17 tournaments are not notable). Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it is deleted now it will merely have to be restored later on, he is a highly rated left back signed by the European Champions, even in the ever that he doesn't make it at United the idea that he will immediately retire from football and never play for anyone is highly unlikely. He's notable if nothing else for his incredible goalscoring achievements from the left back position at the U-17 World Cup. Kie (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Playing/scoring in an Under-17 tournament does not confer notability. Any assumption that he might not retire from football without playing professionally is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N and per Kie, why delete an article that is only going to be recreated a short time from now anyway, once he does finally step onto the field? He's already signed on to a professional team, he stood out at an international youth competition, he's got media coverage in mainstream sources, people have heard of him and his brother and will want to know more about him once he finally does start playing. We're here to serve Wikipedia readers, not use Wiki guidelines to stymie content in favour of process. Tiamut^talk 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he actually plays for the first team. Footballers who have never actually played competitive club football should not be considered notable, like a writer who has never published a book, just because the Manchester United website has content about one of their own youth team players and selected football journalists have nothing better to do than write about a kid who has never even played a game doesn't make the article worthy of inclusion. What if he never plays at professional level at all? There are tens of thousands of semi-professional players in the lower leagues, who have actually played competitive football that are the subject of multiple reliable sources, do they all get articles too? We get slammed ([9] [10], [11], [12], ) because the inclusion criteria "let through" too many football biographies (17,000 odd in July 2008) from one side, and are pressed into including more (that are as non-notable as they come in terms of their footballing acheivements) from the other side. King of the North East 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this page to read about Fabio and was absolutely shocked that anyone would doubt his notability. Despite his lack of first team appearances, he is well known to most English football fans. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, and I'm glad someone made it. What first brought me to this subject was that I was trying to look up information on Fabio da Silva - specifically, what position he plays. I was surprised to see we had no article. So this is not, for me, an abstract issue - this is a case of Wikipedia failing to provide me the information I wanted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, aren't you? Most English football fans would have no idea at all who this kid is. - fchd (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Richard, I had never heard of him before this AfD kicked off -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. The first I'd heard of him was when the DRV came to the attention of WP:FOOTY, and that despite hearing about his brother beforehand. Peanut4 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess, I find the existence of people looking for information on the topic more persuasive than the existence of people who had not heard of him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first of all, Wikipedia is not a big container for the information you want, but for the information that are deemed to be worthwhile of being included in an encyclopedia (yes, we're talking about an encyclopedia). The guy we are talking about, then, he has not played a single minute with the team he is contracted with, so he is being paid by his employer for doing nothing at all. Then, any definition like "he'll play a game, sooner or later" is an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL (we cannot predict the future, we have no supernatural powers in the end). Someone might argue the WP:ATHLETE rule is "weird", because it implicitly says that playing a minute in a Lega Pro Seconda Divisione or Football League Two game is more notable than being the Brazil Under17 topscorer: first, this reminds me of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and secondly, it is a issue to be debated in the right places rather than here. Personally I think Filippo Mancini (20 minutes in a Coppa Italia game before to disappear from the Italian sourcemakers) is even less notable than Fabio da Silva, with both of them being in any case non-notable to have a Wikipedia article, but this is just my opinion. --Angelo (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would vote keep, there is enough citations to pass WP:BIO. Govvy (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said above, although he has never played a first team match he is well known to Man Utd supporters and I myself have looked for his page and wondered why there has never been one created. This boy will also eventually be played when he is back from injury, even if its only in one of the 'minor' competitions, so I don't see any point in deleting a page, just to recreate it which could happen be sooner rather than later as he should hopefully be fit soon. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no guarantee he will ever play. Hence delete or redirect until he does actually play. Peanut4 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (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.