Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Borja (American soccer)


 * 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. Nom withdrawn after evidence that player passes WP:ATH. Black Kite 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Borja (American soccer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Carlos Borja appears to be an athlete who has never competed in a first-division professional league or represented his country at the national level. He does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for athletes. faithless  (speak)  02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, only playing in second division at the moment, and does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. If he ever gets a game with the main team of Chivas USA he'll meet the notability criteria, but that does not appear to be a foregone conclusion at this point.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment CD Tapatio play in the Primera División A which is a fully professional league and Borja has played for them. Nanonic (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I nominated this article I was unaware that Primera División A was a fully professional league (my fault, I should have been more careful). Given the sources provided by Nanonic, it seems that Borja has appeared for them. I therefore have no objection to this AfD being closed. faithless   (speak)  23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Article needs renaming though...GiantSnowman 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your citing BLP in your argument. Are you suggesting that there is unsourced contentious material in the article which needs to be deleted? I don't see anything contentious at all. If it is the lack of sources that concerns you, well, that's a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Best, faithless   (speak)  04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that unsourced BLPs should not exist, and that if there is no sign of interest sourcing it, then it should be deleted. I do improve articles where I have the knowledge to do so, however there are 30000+ unsourced BLPs, and only a small number of editors fixing them. Kevin (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - four refs added to confirm he has played regularly for Tapatio -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keepper new evidence.GauchoDude (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (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.