Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonatan Lucca

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonatan Lucca[edit]

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

PROD contested for no reason although I guess it is because he played in the 3rd division in Brazil, which is not fully-pro as per WP:FPL. So the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's sound analysis. Cavarrone 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not yet played in a WP:FPL, and has no significant media coverage, thus fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. If subject appears for FC Goa this season, then deletion review is appropriate, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Keep - Subject has played in an FPL - substituted in at 83'. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has indeed appeared for FC Goa ina league listed at FPL. Please revise your vote, according to your statement. Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Jonatan has appeared in a Copa Paranaense match between two fully-pro clubs (e.g., Atlético and Parana) which meets the spirit of NFOOTY (and Atlético had not yet avoided relegation so this was an important match). I've added a few references to the article, but they are fairly routine. It's a close call, but I think this one can satisfy the GNG and NFOOTY can be invoked because of the importance of the cup match between two fully-pro sides. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to prove Brazilian Serie C is professional, rather than Copa Paranaense, which usually played by B team. I haven't start researching Serie C yet, but definitively more professional than Serie D which local team qualifying as regional cup winner. Matthew_hk t c 08:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian football considers the state-level competitions, including Copa Paranaense, to be separate from the national Series. Thus, even though a Copa Paranaense match could be contested between a club from Serie A and a club from Serie B (both fully professional leagues), the match itself is not considered part of a WP:FPL. As the Copa Paranaense has a league table completely separate from Serie A and Serie B tables, I have to conclude that these matches do not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it is unclear whether the Copa Paranaense is a FPL (there are fully-pro clubs participating, but I don't think all clubs must be), we have established consensus that a competitive match between two fully-pro clubs (e.g., in a confederation-wide or national cup) satisfies the spirit of NFOOTY. I realize the Paraná-state competition is not a national cup like England's FA Cup, but it is a means of entry into the national competitions and I see no reason to believe Atlético-PR or Paraná Clube were treating the state competition lightly or using reserves (at least until they had mathematically avoided relegation). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Even if this player has indeed played in one match that qualifies him for WP:NFOOTY I'm tempted to still vote delete on the basis that it clearly fails WP:GNG. I know that this is still a controversial issue but I know that we have deleted some articles recently where a player has played one cup game between two fully pro clubs. In cases such as this we should look at GNG instead of seeing NFOOTY as a rigid boundary. Spiderone 07:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plays currently in a fully professional league, passes WP:NFOOTY, season just started last week-end Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has now played in a fully professional league. Also seems to have been the subject of some coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I withdraw the AfD as Lucca recently made his fully-pro debut. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has made his debut in a WP:FPL here and the player is 21 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no questions now he's made Indian debut. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appeared for FC Goa at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo^[online] 14:33, 12 October 2015 (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.