Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Cabrera

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Cabrera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Youth club was notable, but never got signed to play for them as a professional. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No contest. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and does not meet WP:NSPORTS or the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per evidence from Stu and Sir Sputnik this player now meets WP:NSPORTS, so my !vote has changed to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with this case is the assumption that the highest league in Cyprus is not fully professional - which under WP:NFOOTBALL is the somewhat arbitrary qualifying criterion for notability. From what I can tell, this comes from one throwaway line in an article on the website of a Cypriot club's sponsor. That line doesn't even say that the league is semi pro, just that the club they sponsor is professional. Cypriot teams have performed reasonably well in European competition in recent years and Cabrera's club has Jordi Cruyff as director of football and a highly international squad. None of this suggests to me anything but professionalism. Although it is unsourced, this article suggests that at least the top division is pro, and that the lower divisions are a mixture of pro and semi-pro.Stu.W UK (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To address Stu's comments, I'd like to draw everyone's attention here, where I've asked others opinions on some sources that deal with exactly that issue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence cited by Sputnik. I have also moved Cyprus from the list of non-pro to the list of pro leagues. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator, I am now satisfied that the Cypriot First League is fully pro, and I am prepared to withdraw the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Even with the nominator's withdrawal, the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps" so I think more discussion is needed. The "delete" !voters should also be encouraged to revisit this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2011 (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.