Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inri Manzo

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 no consensus. Subject passes NFOOTY but I acknowledge issues around wider GNG noted. Historic AfD arguments have shown consensus that young players still involved in NFOOTY passing competitions are notable despite low numbers of appearance as it is presumed they will make further FPL appearances. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inri Manzo[edit]

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article satisfies WP:FOOTBALL because he has played in Liga MX, however all sources indicate that he has never played in Liga MX, but rather has made 2 substitute appearances in the initial phase of the Copa MX - i.e., not a fully-pro league. Even if someone believes that the cameos in the cup competition are equivalent to playing in the league (a dubious claim in my view), the only online coverage of this player is a handful of routine match reports, a mention of him being let go by Veracruz, and an announcement of his signing for a semi-pro club (Orizaba). Jogurney (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY .He has played in the Copa MX for Veracruz against Monterrey when the both clubs for playing Liga MX a fully professional league as per this .Now the subject is only 26 years and is currently playing for Veracruz in Copa MX hence see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He left Veracruz in 2016, and plays for semi-pro Orizaba - most 26 year old players don't revive their careers after dropping out of professional football, and it seems like we would be applying WP:CRYSTAL to assume he will make further appearances in Copa MX (or an actual fully-pro league). I agree that he made two cameos in the Copa MX (initial phase), which doesn't get significant coverage unlike Liga MX or even Ascenso MX. That a dubious notability claim in my view. Jogurney (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:As per Soccerway profile as I type he is listed as Veracruz player now even he is playing Orizaba .Now if he was injured or retired it would be different but he is 26 years and actively playing hence would not normally agree to deletion any sportsman who meets WP:NSPORT and is actively playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are correct. This article indicates that Manzo left Orizaba (due to age restrictions) at the end of May 2017 - and while unclear, he may have returned to Veracruz in some capacity. I'll see if there is anything which confirms he is in Veracruz's future plans. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are no mentions of him on Veracruz's official website since late 2016, and he is not listed in the equipo. Perhaps he is playing for another affiliated club, but it seems more likely the club has cut ties with him (as they would have when he moved to Orizaba in 2016). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in article he ever played in a match between full pro teams.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert the information is provided just above. Read Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there is much to improve for a footballer who has only played 51 minutes of football in the Copa MX a few years ago. This is a case where an article so narrowly passes the bright line of NFOOTBALL, that it isn't reasonable to assume notability or future compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article "needs improvement", then do it. Find the sources, expand the article, make it pass the notability requirements, and turn this into encyclopedic content and not just another stub. I'm not a fan of adding biographies that will can never reach an encyclopedic level. In this case in particular, the amount of sources to back up this player are just not there. This is a non-notable football profile. MX (✉ • ✎) 02:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination statement is right on the money I think. With only 51 minutes across 2 substitute appearances in a cup competition that has amateur teams as well, the "presumption" of notability on the basis that his two games were between 2 professional teams is tenuous even if that is technically meeting NFOOTBALL. Given that he now plays in a non pro league and not generating in depth coverage, this subject fails WP:GNG. ClubOranje^T 10:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bright line in NFOOTY presumes there is enough significant coverage to satisfy GNG. This presumption does not seem to apply to this subject due to lack of experience and time of play at the appropriate level, as well a presumably notable level. A sports biography that has no chance of expansion because the subject has dropped below the radar of significant coverage is not the intent behind covering subjects on Wikipedia. We are not a repository for indiscriminate information. As stated above: If the article "needs improvement", then do it. Find the sources, expand the article, make it pass the notability requirements, and turn this into encyclopedic content... ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Comment SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 26 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to indicate this person is likely to play in fully professional leagues. And presumption of notability based on minutes played for Veracruz in a cup tournament is dubious, especially if he is currently playing below the professional level - meaning the subject fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. If it were firmly established that the next part of his career would be in the pros then that would be different. So, as stated above, WP:CRYSTAL applies as does WP:IINFO due to WP:TOOSOON. If he starts generating enough acceptable coverage to satisfy GNG then recreate or resurrect this article. Also, as a biography of a living person, more reliable sourcing should be available for a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been a truly interesting discussion so far, but at the moment I think there are equally valid arguments for closing as delete or as no consensus, so let's have another week to get some more viewpoints.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is topic banned from the Wikipedia namespace and therefore has no standing to comment here. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as you are the first editor to suggest the article meets the GNG, would you please provide more detail on why you think it does? I've searched online and don't believe it could (and believe the article doesn't in its current state). Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow BabbaQ (pinging) to answer to the question posed today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. AFD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument - nobody has suggested the article's current state is grounds for deletion. However, as I stated above, it appears there are no sources available to improve or expand the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced with WP:RS and there is no WP:DEADLINE it will expand in due course and further the subject is 26 years and is playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as the page stands, it's an easy delete, no mentions of notability and barely formatted. If it gets expanded a bit, with proper formatting, I don't see a problem with keeping since he passes the bare minimum for notability.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NFOOTY, there is rs in the article, its crystal ball to prejudge the rest of his career and the state of the article is not relevant Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a longstanding consensus of viewing such minimal play in a fully-pro league (or in this case a cup competition) as not actually satisfying NFOOTBALL unless it's clear that GNG can be satisfied (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). We are not pre-judging his career but rather noting the facts - he has never appeared in a fully-pro league (just a cup) and has spent the last few years with semi-pro clubs. Jogurney (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it seems absurd to me that editors argue to keep players with les than a games worth of time in a local cup competition open to all-comers, yet argue to delete a guy who has played several games at the FIFA Club World Cup which pits the winners of all the confederation top champions leagues against each other. ClubOranje^T 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:23, 22 October 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.