Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charalambos Lykogiannis


 * 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 insufficient consensus to overcome WP:NFOOTY. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Charalambos Lykogiannis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A football player who technically passes WP:NFOOTY, as he has appeared for 8 minutes in the quarterfinals of the 2011–12 Greek Football Cup, a fully professional competition. However, he has received minimal non-routine media coverage from reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm  1  fent  12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm  1  fent  12:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG; 8 minutes of gametime does not confer notability, per WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Players, managers and referees who have represented their country on international match are notable, as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of Pro football.

Ηe is appear in his official debut with the first team. He participate in a Euro final game. He participate in the NextGen Series. Three Official Events, Greek Football Cup, 2012 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship(final tournament, final game), NextGen Series. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria. The article have strong reliable sources for the status of this player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terenen (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The UEFA Euro U19 and NextGen Series both are youth tournaments and don't automatically confer notability. The Gavros sources are neither independent to Olympiacos nor reliable and should not be used to access the notability of an Olympiacos' player. Besides, even if the sources were appropriate, the player has only received routine coverage (match reports, contract renewals, etc). – Kosm  1  fent  20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

* All the Sources are legal official media, and they are obey in the Greek Law. All the media have freedom and can not censor or blamed for their neutrality. Wikipedia records History, and not just someone who belongs to the star system and is famous. Everyone who is recorded on official sources must be recorded on wikipedia. The rule of notability is very weak in front of the rule of record history as observers and writers we are. Exable: An unknown profesionall player from Nigeria who plays in a local club without recognition, but is register on official sources must be recorded like a profesionall who plays in a local club at Holland. WE RECORD History as they are. We DONT jugde if is famous or not. * I request from the Admins to remove their suggestion for deletion and change their vote to Keep. Terenen (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia does not record history; newspapers do and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, sources are judged according to WP:V, a core policy. Not everyone merits a place in Wikipedia; whether you are Messi or Yusuf Malaka Audu), you need to pass WP:N, a guideline that Lykogiannis simply fails at the moment (WP:TOOSOON). – Kosm  1  fent  10:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You say: "An encyclopedia does not record history."

* The historical significance of the encyclopedia: wikipedia. Wikipedia records history. The wikipedia is a prototype electronic work to gather inventory, documentation, presentation and promotion of historical data across the spatiotemporal evolution. * About rules and policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".(IGNORE)Terenen (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I know he does not pass GNG but I do have a soft spot for players under the age of 21. I believe that because of there young age, only passing NFOOTY should really help them and that we should assume that overtime they will pass GNG. That is just my overall preference and really the only way I can make sense of the many players from the Football League Cup who make there debuts. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of those players passes GNG, and those who don't should be taken to AfD. Opting to keep younger footballers who fail GNG, unlike older players, (WP:ILIKEIT) under the impression that they might meet GNG in the near future (WP:CRYSTAL), blaming the large number of League Cup debutants who have articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST), are all terrible arguments for keep. – Kosm  1  fent  05:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most dont though, unless your a user who when he creates an article really goes deep to find sources you wont have an article which passes GNG for a 19 year old. Lets see, I shall try to redo this page and see what I can do then as it definitely needs a revamp if its a keep. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

*What about Alejandro_Grimaldo; Leonardo_Capezzi; These are examples which show that sometimes the criteria for one footballer are not the same. Here we have two young footballers playing for Barcelona B and Fiorentina. These players are unknown to the public. Question: Do these players pass the criteria for notability? And why? Because they are playing in countries and clubs with big reputation? Or because they have prospective for the future and they deserve an article? Do they actually deserve the focus that we give to them(youngsters)? My answer is yes. Any detail is deserved to be recorded from the start of their career, so that we have a huge tank of information, about who is going to give us, in the years to come, a complete status of evolution in the culture of football.

*I tried to write this article Charalambos Lykogiannis based on truth, details, official sources and nothing more. If some of the writers write their articles not based on details about the career of one footballer, I ensure you that this is not the way I am going to write my articles tooTerenen (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC).


 * I do believe this article should be kept but those 2 players are not good examples. Alejandro has played in 7 games in the league for Barcelona B. I am not going to comment about him passing GNG as he is only 17 but 17 and playing regularly for Barca B is a huge keep. Leonardo does not pass NFOOTY and should be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Grimaldo passes NFOOTY by far. Capezzi fails GNG and NFOOTY, and it's a prime candidate for deletion. Lykogiannis fails GNG (routine coverage from Olympiacos fan papers doesn't merit inclusion) and while he meets the letter of NFOOTY, he fails its principle, which ensures that players who have appeared in a fully professional competition meet GNG (which as I formentioned, he doesn't). – Kosm  1  fent  19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - technically this player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, but there are a long-standing consensus that players who have played in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro league are considered notable. Through the last couple of months there have been some AfD's where players that have played only one match have been deleted (and I have been one of the voters for delete), but as Arsenalkid I'm reluctant to delete young footballers who have the future ahead of them. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "I do have a soft spot for players under the age of 21. " is straight-out ILKEHIM. that he might become notable in the future is irrelevant. When he does, there will be reason for an article. I might support a RfC that we want to include youth teams at the international level in the criteria, but so far the consensus has not supported it. No reason to make an exception here.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NSPORT is somewhat ambiguous about cup matches, but common sense dictates eight minutes in any matches very rarely generates the coverage necessary for notability, and Lykogiannis clearly fails WP:GNG. All three external links and the first in-line citation are player profiles, explicitly excluded as routine coverage by WP:NSPORT. In line citations two and three do not mention him at all, and four makes only a passing mention, Five, eight, nine and ten are match reports, six is routine transfer news, and seven is a dead link, meaning none of it qualifies as significant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The seventh reference (judging by its title) is a contract renewal. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  05:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Technically 8 minutes are not important per se, but the 1 appearance that the 8 minutes confere. While I am not an enthusiast for considering cup games for GNG, if it is trouth that he has 1 appearance in a match that by norms we consider pro, we should do as our guides say even if I am personally tempted to say "delete and recreate once he further plays"... FkpCascais (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Guides" (I'm assuming you mean guidelines) are not set on stone – meeting the letter of a guideline while failing its spirit (the spirit of all notability guidelines is an assumption that the subject passes GNG) does not mean that it can be used to keep an article no matter what. – Kosm  1  fent  14:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nominator comment: On a sidenote, I've improved the article in terms of WP:MOS and grammar/syntax, as it was very poor in these areas. More referencing and NPOV prose will be needed if the article is to be kept. – Kosm  1  fent  16:20, 1 October 2012 (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.