Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Janota

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. There is no clear demonstration either way that this player is (non-)notable, so consensus for deletion cannot have been established, despite a month of trying. On my own reading, it appears he may meet WP:NFOOTBALL, although it's hard for me to judge whether his club is "top flight" or not. -Splash - tk 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Janota[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Original concern is unknown. Mr Janota has not played in a fully pro league or received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player played 90 minutes for fully-pro (Division 2) Atletico CP in the Portuguese League Cup against fully-pro (D2) Sporting Covilhã and in the Portuguese Cup against fully-pro (D2) Naval. If a player had done the English equivalent, he would be presumed notable, and I suspect we shouldn't be treating English fully-pro leagues differently from non-English. Article needs (considerable) improvement, not deletion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Struway2. There is a long-standing consensus that playing a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro leagues confer notability. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet GNG. Were Atletico a 2nd level team when he was with them? From Fora de Jogo it looked like they were 3rd level (but called Division II). Given his career is quite recent I'd expect significant web references to be available if he was actually notable. Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atletico are a second-level team, and he is with them. It was this season that he made his first-team appearances for them as a second-level club, as Fora de Jogo confirms (click on the magnifying glass on the 2012/13 row).
Having had a quick look for online sources, there's media coverage going back to his first call-up for Portugal under-17s in 2004, was called into Benfica's first team squad when they had an injury crisis and was on the bench once aged 18, was a transfer target for Standard Liege in 2006, had trials with CD Leon in July and with FC Utrecht in October 2007, match reports for his various third-tier clubs, signing for Atletico again (the online piece tells us to buy Saturday's paper if we want to read the whole article), etc. None of these sources are in the article, and some are little more than name-checks, but it's rather quicker and easier to find what are to me foreign-language sources than to incorporate them into coherent prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only had a quick look at FdJ and I think the fact that his info box doesn't list games at Atletico in this current spell, made me assume he played at his highest level earlier on. Anyway, I note you have found a number of further mentions of him, although as you suggest, they don't appear to constitute meeting GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 29 October 2012 (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.