Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angélica Vázquez


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Angélica Vázquez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.

An additional source has been added to the article, but this is insufficient to satisfy GNG. Al though it is an interview with the player, it is relatively brief and whilst not trivial coverage, is not significant enough on its own, aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unlikely that any footballer would pass GNG having played only 3 games in a professional league. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Matthew_hk   t  c  12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete no where close to meeting our even abysmally over broad inclision criteria for footballers. GNG should not be allowed to trump football notability guidelines for people who are known only as footballers. If it can, we should just scap field specific guidelines entirely. This is the same way that just because a politician may seem by some interpretations of GNG to meet it, does not mean we will keep the article. This especially applies to unelected politicians. Some positions get lots of shallow, not significant coverage, and field specific guidelines are menat to aid in distinguishing this junk coverage from the type of coverage that can lead to a quality article. I would suggest though that with sports the field specific guidelines are way to braod to be of any use in weeding out articles that will ever be anything more than the result of shallow, meaningless coverage. The fact that people have tried to defend articles on cricket players for whom we just have an intial, and stats tables showing they played in a "first class" match shows that the current guidelines on sportpeople create absurd results and need to be revised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice towards republishing the article in the future should additional references become available to support WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Share the same view as John Pack Lambert.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.