Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frédéric Boniface

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Boniface[edit]

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

Although he passes WP:NFOOTY, I can't find any in-depth sources indicating he passes the higher bar of WP:GNG. Referencing from mere statistical databases is not sufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This BLP is about a footballer who played a handful of games in France's D2 (3) and Scotland's D2 (8). It's not even clear to me that Scotland's D2 was a fully-pro league in 2000 when he played there. I found one online Le Parisien article (an interview in connection with his signing for Stade Reims in 2002) that would qualify as significant coverage in a reliable source, but I'm struggling to find anything else. I don't think the article can pass the GNG, and it only meets NFOOTY by the narrowest of margins. Jogurney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate Struway2's efforts to expand the article, I am not convinced it can satisfy the GNG (the Le Parisien interview is the only non-routine coverage I've seen - although the Sunday Herald article does come close). Jogurney (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has made a number of appearances in two fully-professional leagues, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in fully professional leagues, this makes him meet WP:NFOOTBALL notability guidelines. IJA (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTBALL, the fact that the article needs improvement is not a case for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Passing NFOOTY is not enough to keep an article in the absence of a GNG pass. All of these keep votes are failing to take that into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded it to include a bit more non-matchreport non-database content. May well not be enough in the article to demonstrate GNG as it stands, but IMO there's enough to show the likelihood of someone with access to French newspapers of the time (there's surprisingly little freely available online) and interest enough to research the subject to be able to demonstrate it. I.e. "very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GiantSnowman. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NFOOTY by playing over a dozen games in not one but two fully professional leagues. While there is consensus that someone who barely passes the criteria, by playing in one or two games in an FPL, can still be deleted, consensus is clearly and always that players who play more than that, are kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we certain that Scotland's D2 was fully-pro in 2000? The cites on WP:FPL are more recent, and there is at least one cite which suggests the league may not have been (e.g., players routinely contracted for less than a year to allow clubs to stay afloat or the 2006 Scotsman article; "Look at Raith Rovers, who are deservedly sitting at the top of the league just now. I think they have only nine full-time players, with the rest part-time."). Jogurney (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NFOOTBALL and has had a farely decent career having played from 1994 to 2006 for around 12 clubs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (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.