Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Gonzalez Hernandez

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Gonzalez Hernandez

Completely unsourced article with little content at all; simply being a football player doesn't mean inherent notability.

Delete as nom. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The athlete passes WP:ATHLETE. So in this case, notability is inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schuym1 (passes WP:ATHLETE) DavidWS (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nom is correct to say that "simply being a football player doesn't mean inherent notability", all professional footballers, by dint of being professional, are notable. Moreover, this guy appears to have played for the national team: if that's not professional, surely that's the highest level of amateur competition, as required by WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator - while I don't doubt the veracity of the information contained in the article (he exists, his DOB, and the fact that he's a professional sports player), isn't there at least some level of verifiability required, specifically "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject" (from WP:BLP)? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article only needs to pass one thing and it passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found sources that can probably verify it, but the problem is that the sources aren't in English. Schuym1 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which I can't read. Schuym1 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are other policies to consider beyond a notability guideline... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to pass WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD is only a forum for deciding whether or not the subject of an article is encyclopedic - it doesn't have anything to do with the actual content. ugen64 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Has played for a professional league. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep played in a fully pro league BanRay 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have initiated a pump discussion of the policy application here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everyone else. He passes WP:ATHLETE Captain panda 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The fact that the article is currently very short doesnt matter. The fact that he passes WP:ATHLETE means that the article can almos certainly be improved, and it's worth trying rather than deleting it. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes ATHLETE; has played for a professional league. I think that the nominator is mistaken in what AfD is for, and should probably read deletion policy and BEFORE. Formally, if something can be fixed by regular editing processes, then it isn't a good candidate for AfD. Informally, that means that AfD is only for the discussion of the notability/encyclopedic-ness of a subject. If an article is deficient in ways that can be fixed through editing, then AfD isn't a solution. That is, the article can be improved, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with the subject, so there's no reason to delete it. There's no deadline, and we can improve the article. I hope I've helped to clear that up. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:17, 29 October 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.