Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Ramos

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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Ramos[edit]

[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)

Made 52 appearances for four teams in the Eerste Divisie across four seasons. A web search finds an article about his suspension ([1]) but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources that met WP:SIGCOV either. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-term professional soccer player. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He spent four seasons in the Eerste Divisie. I don't see how you would class that as "long-term". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a matter of definition. It's not my job to bore those who react after me with yes-no arguments. The important distinction is that we sometimes remove the article of a player who played a chance game or a just few games in the Eerste Divisie. Not players who were long run professionals like Leon Ramos. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In just one season Ramos played most matches with 29, in the other three seasons he made 11, 7, and 5 appearances (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/leon-ramos/2/). So he did not fully establish himself as a professional footballer in more than the short term. Semantics aside, there is just no SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: [1.] As you opened your own intro, it all circles around addition. You now fall into irrelevant subtraction. You dropped under my opinion already your second reaction-distraction in a row. Supposedly, if we put Omniworld (Almere City FC) aside, then it is 11, 7, and 5. But there is absolutely no reason to put Omniworld aside. And even 11, 7, and 5 makes 23. A large number. The relevant numbers are 52 games and 4 years in the Eerste Divisie. Not some salami version thereof. [2.] We know the importance of Leon Ramos. It is crystal clear. We also know that he played in the 2000s. These are lull years. Years for which we do not have most of the newspaper articles as the items have moved and the main archives do not hold the articles yet. We know for a fact that he was covered in the main Dutch football magazine (Voetbal International) and a regional radio station (Omroep Flevoland) covered him. These articles are shorter than your typical newspaper article. We know for a fact that a lot of AfDs focus on these years. Gotcha AfDs. For example, other people blow a hole in the middle of a tournament after not enough SIGCOV was found for the editions in 2004, 2005, 2006. Next they claim that we need to delete all annual editions even though the SIGCOV is clearly there. Per previous results. My approach is that we need to concentrate more on the big picture. To be less of an information clerk and more of an information manager. We should stop searching for the hole in the bagel and then, when people do not buy into this, start arguing with LITERALLY EACH PERSON who disagrees with you. As Visviva correctly points out, there is enough bread here for a good article. The application of true information governance principles and reduction of AfDs and arguments leads to the increment of time spent in the article space, where we can make much more difference. It will also lead to AfD results being less random since no longer dictated by the decade in which a professional footballer happened to play. gidonb (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that some participants above may be overinterpreting WP:SIGCOV, which states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As explained there, the point of the SIGCOV requirement is to avoid original research (which might apply if e.g. this article were attempting to reconstruct his career from incidental mentions in match reports). That doesn't really seem to be the case here, and while the article about his suspension or this squib about his transfer to Cambuur don't really give much material, they are not trivial mentions and interpreting them requires no OR. The NL article shows IMO that a reasonably comprehensive and encyclopedic treatment of his career is possible. -- Visviva (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Omroep Flevoland "article" (a short paragraph long) is a routine transfer announcement, that is a trivial mention. The article about his suspension is two short paragraphs long, it's clearly not SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that above. That the items (more than mentioned) are short and why they are short. It's obviously because of the years he played. There is no situation that a footballer is covered by the regional radio and the main football magazine yet not in the newspapers that cover more at length. Never happened. We can do in such cases with what we have. Counting words does not replace operating our brains. gidonb (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer reports are by wide consensus considered trivial and non-contributory to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NL article is based almost entirely on non-independent and/or primary sources (with the exception of the VI web transactional report). An article cannot be based on such sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. The sourcing included in the NL Wiki article is insufficient (just routine transfer news). Jogurney (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed that the above source is obviously routine transfer coverage, and nothing else approaches SIGCOV. It's irrelevant whether he played professionally or not as that reasoning has been rejected as a factor in determining notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per gidonb and Visviva. Article needs improvement,t not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. While transfer coverage can be significant, the coverage shown here are just routine and short announcements that are woefully short on being significant. Also, being a professional footballer has long been a poor indicator of notability. Alvaldi (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. No evidence of significant coverage despite being a professional soccer player, but this fact alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 1 July 2023 (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.