Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Mérida

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, until he plays in a professional league, per WP policies --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

At DRV, the original closer reversed himself and changed the result to no consensus. Xoloz 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fran Mérida

Fran Mérida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The most recent revision of this article was speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on this AfD. However, DRV overturned, finding the content substantially different. Still, weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The general criterion for notability is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think this criterion is met. Sky Sports says he is one of "Europe's most promising teenage talents". In fact, he is well-known enough to have had 5 articles written about his transfer and career at Arsenal, which is more than some other "notable" players. He was a member of the Spain U-17 team that won the 2007 UEFA U-17 Championship (an official FIFA-sponsored international competition). The arguments to delete players like this are based on one of the criteria in WP:BIO - "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are considered notable. However, the full guideline says that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." These standards include...
  • "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (several, including Sky Sports and BBC... not to mention Marca)
  • "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" (winning an official FIFA-sponsored international competition?)
  • "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition" - okay, we all know that Google searches are not infallible, but compare Merida's 30k + hits (more than 50k if you take out the "Arsenal" search term) with a few players that I think are undoubtedly notable. First - Neil Cox, the captain of a League One side, who gets less than 1000 hits. Second - Steve Guppy, an England international with over 100 matches played in the Premiership, who gets less than 20,000 hits. Third - a google search of all the hits, combined, for every other midfielder in the Arsenal reserve squad who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. These players combined rack up a little more than 20,000 hits. Merida is, by far, the most notable player in the Arsenal Reserves squad without an article (I agree that 90% of the reserves squad is non-notable, by the way) and so I think that despite the fact that he has never made an first-team appearance for Arsenal, he is still notable enough for an article. ugen64 05:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete When he plays for a notable team then he's a notable player, not before. The standards of inclusion for athletes on Wikipedia are very broad but shouldn't be abused by including people who simply don't qualify. Nick mallory 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So you are saying the following: "If an athlete has not played for a notable team, then he is not a notable player, full stop"? ugen64 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just repeating what the firmly established Wikipedia policy is regarding such sportsmen. Unless they've done something really noteworthy, they have to have played in a fully professional league or at the top level of amateur sports. There are exceptions to this, but this guy isn't one of them. Notability isn't simply a question of google hits. How can a footballer who hasn't played a proper game be notable in their sport, it makes no sense, what about a painter who'd never painted a picture? Nick mallory 08:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment but in the world of business sports, isn't buzz and marketing as important as actual playing the sport? This is an unfortunate turn of events for fans of sports, but an unmistakable feature of notability today. I haven't decided if I will comment directly here or not, but I want this point clarified.--Cerejota 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is buzz and marketing as important as playing the actual sport? No. Never. But maybe that's just me. Nick mallory 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He has "played a proper game" - in fact he played in the 2006 U-17 Championship (as a 16 year old) and won the 2007 U-17 Championship. in the past, big clubs have paid upwards of 2 million pounds for players based on performances in youth tournaments alone, which IMO makes them notable competitions, and therefore players who won honours at those competitions are notable. Case in point: Carlos Vela made 0 first-team appearances for Chivas. He helped Mexico win the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Cup. A few months later, Arsenal bought him for 2.5 million pounds. Also, English players seem to have an inherent disadvantage because the reserve teams are not professional - in Spain and Germany, the reserve teams are professional (see VfB Stuttgart II, Real Madrid Castilla) but does that really make a Stuttgart reserve team player more notable than an Arsenal reserve team player? (if I recall correctly, Stuttgart have never made the Champions League final while Arsenal have...) ugen64 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cricketers who've played for their country at under 19 level are not considered notable unless they've played first class cricket. Youth players at football clubs get paid money but if they haven't played for the first team I just don't see how they can be notable. Are you saying all players who've played for their country at youth level should get in? It's not a question of whether the clubs have 'professional' reserve teams, it's whether the player has appeared for the club. Nick mallory 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Are you saying all players who've played for their country at youth level should get in?" No. Read what I wrote again. "in the past, big clubs have paid upwards of 2 million pounds for players based on performances in youth tournaments alone, which IMO makes them notable competitions, and therefore players who won honours at those competitions are notable."

"It's not a question of whether the clubs have 'professional' reserve teams, it's whether the player has appeared for the club." Under the current criteria, any player who makes a first-team appearance for a professional club is notable. Therefore, a player who makes 1 appearance for VfB Stuttgart II then becomes injured and retires from football is considered "notable", while a player who makes 20 appearances for Arsenal F.C. Reserves and captains their country's U-19 team to a victory at the UEFA U-19 Championship (for example) is not necessarily considered as such... I was just pointing out that disparity. ugen64 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a disparity. It's just the accepted notability rule here. Age group competitions don't cut it. Appearances for the second team don't cut it. Appearances for the first team in the professional league do. Are you saying anyone who's appeared for a First class cricket club's second team should get an article? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Nick mallory 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. VfB Stuttgart II is a reserve team of VfB Stuttgart. Arsenal F.C. Reserves is a reserve team of Arsenal FC. According to Wikipedia policy (first-team appearances for professional teams = notable), someone who plays for VfB Stuttgart II is considered more notable than someone who plays for Arsenal F.C. Reserves. Can you give me a good reason why this is so? ugen64 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the rest of your statement... "Are you saying anyone who's appeared for a First class cricket club's second team should get an article?" - actually, I've never watched a game of cricket in my life, so I'd be the last person to say anything at all about Wikipedia policy regarding cricketers. The extent of my argument is this: some (very very few) footballers who have not played in a fully professional league can be notable for other reasons. if I looked through every reserve team in the Premiership, I could find maybe 5 players (that's a generously high estimate) who fit that description. for some reason, people seem to read my argument as "all reserve players are notable" (hardly) or "all youth team players are notable" (nope). I'm just saying that there is actually not a "line" so to speak. the key word here is "notable": there is no policy on Wikipedia that people have to be "professional footballers" (of course that is a guideline, and one that works in 99.9% of cases). you might notice that it says at the very top of all the notability guidelines: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". that's all I'm saying - there are some very occasional exceptions and IMO this is one of them. ugen64 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ugen64's assertions of notability. T Rex | talk 07:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice if he makes a fully professional appearance later in his career. Prospects and "buzz" are not enough. Oh, and he didn't win the U-20 championships, his team did. - fchd 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played a game in a fully professional league. Number 57 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if DRV overturned it, then it's likely a keep. Also this person is notable and newsworthy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can't agree with your line of argument in saying "if DRV overturned it, then it's likely a keep", but that's possible because I like to make up my own mind on these things. Anyway, as a counterexample, I once asked for a deleted footballer to be overturned by DRV, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noureddine_Maamria. The goal was to make sure that full consensus had been achieved. The overturning wasn't a "keep" in and of itself, just a call to double check. In that case, it was agreed that the article should be deleted. That would be, in my opinion, the right decision here also. Robotforaday 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - deleting today does not mean that when notability is achieved, an article can not return. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Merida is the subject of multiple articles by multiple reliable sources. If, in the future, somebody talks about that wonderkid who was deemed to be "the next big thing" but suddenly disappeared from the radar, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to find this article about him here. Yonatan ^talk 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no professional appearances. --Angelo 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This argument is invalid and probaly a form of facruft/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He might not be notable as a sports player, but he is notable as a prospective sports player. The sources support this. To deny the notability is original research.--Cerejota 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it's just following WP:BIO to the letter. The subject of the article doesn't meet the criteria, so he's non-notable. And as for the suggestion of the previous poster using Original Research, I suggest you re-read WP:BIO and WP:OR. - fchd 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This player has not yet played in a fully professional league, and that, by consensus, is the recognised objective criteria for notability. I can name hundreds of players who are just as much the "next big thing" as this one, and I don't believe they're notable either. When he makes it - THEN he will be notable. Robotforaday 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Robotforaday 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Robotforaday and Storm Rider. Being a talented youth player is insufficient for notability but the article can be brought back if and when he appears for the first team in the league. --Malcolmxl5 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, recreate when he does something other than show promise. Darrenhusted 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that he seems to be one of the most promising youngsters in Europe, and as such demands a fair amount of media coverage and should be noted by Wikipedia. aLii 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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.