Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Scalon

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. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Scalon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Amateur footballer with no professional football experience, whose only apparent point of notability is having been contracted with Chapecoense at the time of the LaMia Flight 2933 accident (he was not part of the first team squad however), last information about him is being contracted with some Italian Serie D (amateur league) team. I could not find enough proof of WP:GNG via reliable secondary sources, all I could find was passing mentions, transfer reports and similar stuff from minor local media. Angelo (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG even if a lot of the coverage is from the Chapecoense plane crash.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing about the notability of the subject, not about the notability of the Chapecoense plane crash. He was not part of it, his name being nothing more than a passing mention about the squad players that were not onboard that flight, his non-Chapecoense significant coverage is very minimal, and there is no trace of him having ever played professionally at any level. --Angelo (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per Ortizesp. Besides the sources in the article already, I found 8 and 9 among many many more Italian and Portuguese sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is an interview, and the second one is just garbage (a list of players loaned out by Chapecoense). Not WP:SIGCOV. Angelo (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is fine, second not. Not enough. Giant Snowman 11:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is any coverage since November 2017, I am open to changing my !vote. But here is my concern (in addition to the fact that aside from the article from The Times of India the coverage is thin). We have a bunch of coverage telling his story as the player who didn't board the plane that crashed, and his signing for Chennai City FC, but it appears it didn't turn out so well for him at CCFC. In November 2017, he pulled out of a match at the last minute citing "adaptability concerns" – it was at the start of an away tour so he likely missed the whole tour – and I'm not seeing anything that confirms he played after that. (Here's the 29 November 2017 Times of India article via ProQuest, you need to be logged in to Wikipedia Library to see it, headline is "Slovenian 'keeper for CCFC ahead of Arrows opener" and name appears as "Lucas Scalon".) So far we are still looking at an article for a football player who has 0 confirmed appearances for any club in any league in any country. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage except The Times of India. BruceThomson (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cielquiparle has this one correct, no meaningful coverage outside of the one good source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 2 January 2023 (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.