Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantinos Laifis


 * 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 -- Y not? 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Constantinos Laifis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced BLP that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. He hasn't played in a WP:FPL, and he also hasn't played internationally. His one Europa League appearance, which is cited as being his claim to notability, was in a second round qualifying match, and those are generally not enough for notability. Not valid for BLP prod because it was restored by an admin on request, having previously been deleted via that method. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - as the admin who originally deleted, and then restored, the article. There is no evidence of notability, subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, re-reference and improve. There's longstanding consensus that a player appearing in a domestic or continental cup match between two teams from fully professional leagues is presumed notable. Mr Laifis played 90 minutes in a European qualifier for a Cypriot First Division club against an Allsvenskan club; both of those leagues are listed at WP:FPL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus has generally been for the main stages of the tournament, not the qualifying rounds, as far as I am aware. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I'm aware. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and the failure of WP:GNG outweighs his sole appearance in such a minor tournament. GiantSnowman 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus can certainly can change, though I'm yet to see convincing evidence that it has in cases similar to this one. And I don't think that those of us who don't read Greek, me included, could decide in minutes that the subject of the article, as opposed to the article about the subject, fails GNG. There doesn't seem to be much in English: odd bits from when he was in the Forest academy, and Cyprus under-age international reports. It's a pity that the article's active editors haven't grasped the principle of sourcing. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your argument, if this were a player whose page was created years ago when he made his sole appearance in a "minor" tournament and he'd never done anything since. Mr Laifis is in the first-team squad of a club in a fully professional league, has played for them in the domestic cup, and is a current under-21 international for his country. I'm well aware that none of those things make him presumed-notable. But if consensus is still that playing in a cup competition between two FPL teams from does, then we should recognise that the presumption of notability as afforded by subject-specific guidelines is to allow time for GNG to be demonstrated (or for it to become clear that it's never likely to be). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point; where are or  when you need them, eh? GiantSnowman 10:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment (moved by Struway2 to separate comment, to avoid it interfering with main part of deletion discussion) I'm not overly impressed with the process of this article's original deletion. Looking at the history, we see that on 29 July last, the referenced article was vandalised and all references removed. Within 30 minutes, it was BLPPRODded. We're supposed to "Review the biography's history to confirm that it has not been vandalized especially if sources have been removed, and there is no more suitable referenced version to revert to", before BLPPRODding. If Mr Laifis' Soccerway profile, a source present in the unvandalised version of the article, had been checked, it would have confirmed his appearance in the European qualifier between two teams from fully professional leagues, which took place four days before the vandalism, and therefore the article's unsuitability for uncontroversial deletion by PROD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to (try to) answer 's concerns about the deletion - do not let this diff fool you, the article was not "vandalised" and references were not removed. The edit on 29 July 2013 was actually a page creation, not an edit to an existing article, as the article had previously been deleted. It was deleted a second time by BLPPROD. GiantSnowman 11:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops... I clearly wasn't reading straight. You'd think the automatic edit summary that starts "Created page..." might have been a bit of a giveaway... And please accept my apologies for thinking the deleting admin wouldn't have checked the validity of the BLPPROD before deleting (it did seem rather unlikely). And, if the prodder sees this, please would they also accept my apologies for maligning their correct use of the process. But it does seem wrong (not just misleading) for prior, unconnected, versions of a deleted article to appear in the history of an undeleted page, rather than just the history of the version being undeleted. Does that happen automatically? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! When I restored the article I restored the full history, as I believe is normally the case for all undeletions - further info is at Viewing and restoring deleted pages. I didn't know that it would then cause a 'diff' between the two, as I don't ever recall being asked to undelete something which has been deleted multiple times before. GiantSnowman 12:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If it were me, which it's never going to be, I might selectively restore just the history of the version I was undeleting. Apart from there's no logical connection between the history of previously deleted versions and that of the current one, restoring the lot does run the risk of reviving articles that were deleted for libel, or copyvio, or attack pages. Or articles about a different person entirely who just happens to share a name with the current subject. Don't suppose this is the right venue for this topic, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends how strongly you believe in attribution. GiantSnowman 13:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article being undeleted was created independently of any prior version, then only those contributions made at and since that independent creation need to appear in the page history. Contributors to articles deleted before the latest creation, by definition, never had any content in that latest creation, so, again by definition, don't need attribution. I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How useful is to have this conversation now ? im just wondering, if you have a look at [| Gefles] page it appears to be as a professional team as by the first paragraph in there, furthermore if this page going to be deleted then i should nominate gefles page for deletion and the 3/4 for the teams because the User:Lukeno94 invented or started a new league for the teams that he thinks are fully professional or not. sorry for the pardon but this story started 1 minute after undeletion, without any real reason, there is intention to be deleted by some people. Regards Argento1985  01:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Enough references were provided about this player on my last edit [here], furthermore if a player is officially recognized by UEFA, it means that he is a professional. And as i know Europa League belongs to UEFA, that makes Anorthosis Famagusta F.C. at least a fully professional team or it should be allowed to it to participate, by that all the players that were assigned to the squad, and all the players that participated counts at least 1 participation OFFICIALLY, if they had no participation then they got their first, Thanks Argento1985  19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I also would like to keep this page because there way too many ref in there so you can check it your self. Deleting a page without any real reason is at least a shame. Argento1985  01:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of references given is not remotely a reason for keeping an article. And there is a real reason, see my nomination statement. Also, you REALLY need to stop attacking me, it doesn't help your case in the slightest. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Request to nominator. Please could you strike the words "and he wasn't playing for a fully-professional team" in the nomination rationale, as it's not actually correct. The Cyprus First Division is a fully professional league as listed at WP:FPL. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think this article can satisfy the GNG. A Google search produces a few Greek-language articles that devote 1-paragraph to his signing with Anorthosis in November 2011, and I found a match report for the Gefle match which says he played as a left-sided defender (nothing else). There are a few other articles that mention he is a squad member, but nothing I can find describes something he's done that makes him notable. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources listed in the article are all player profiles, and search produce nothing significant, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. He is yet to play in a fully pro league, and to address the question above concerning his appearance in the Europa League qualifying, I've seen the issue come up about twenty times over the years, and have never seen a result other than delete. The most recent examples being Alexander Sørloth, Omri Altman, and Admir Adrović (2nd nomination) . Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken the consensus - the question isn't whether they play in a qualification match or in a group stage match, but whether they have played in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues (which is why playing in the League Cup presumes notability, while playing in the FA Cup doesn't even though the latter is a more prestigious tournament). All of the three AfD's you've mentioned above is about players that have appeared in matches where atleast one of the teams was not from a fully pro league. The players at e.g. JK Nõmme Kalju would not be considered notable per WP:NFOOTY even if their team qualifies for the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage, as they play for a team that isn't fully pro. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with this assessment, and so did you in the past. In addition to Omri Altman whom I already referred to above, Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer) played qualifying for FK Partizan, Oliver Janso for a top flight Hungarian club, and Dimitris Pelkas for PAOK against Bnei Yehuda Tel Aviv F.C. All three were deleted, and you even !voted to delete Pelkas. As I've said above in the twenty or so afd's I've seen over the years where the principal claim to notability was an appearance in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA club competitions the articles were always deleted, regardless of which club the player in question was playing for or against. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read what I've written in those AfD's, it is basically the same as I've written here: a player has to appear in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues regardless of competition to be presumed notable. In the case of Mitrovic, I voted before he played the match that would have made him notable in my eyes. As for Pelkas, you can see from my comment that I did a mistake, I thought the Israeli league was not fully pro and made the wrong vote. I believe this discussion at WT:FOOTY from September 2012 supports Struway and mine's view on the consensus, and I think it's a shame that Omri Altman was deleted without anyone mentioning that he actually had appeared in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was ill advised to put words in your mouth, but the basic argument stands. In each case, you're the only one pushing the "both clubs must be fully-pro" argument, and in the cases where it was relevant, the articles would probably have been deleted even if you had !voted keep on those grounds. As for the discussion, it's fairly limited in so far as it applies to this afd, has no clear consensus on the matter, and even makes my key for me. BigDom writes: "Do the players in qualifying matches between two fully-pro teams receive enough coverage to pass GNG, and do they receive any more coverage than the players in those matches where one or both teams are semi-professional?" The answer is clearly no. It's not without reason that WP:NFOOTBALL requires not just a particular club or two clubs involved in a match, but an entire league to be fully pro. Further up, GiantSnowman writes: "people are only notable if they meet GNG; they are only presumed notable if they meet NFOOTBALL." Which is basically my point. WP:NFOOTBALL was never intended to be some sort of arbitrary line, to be used in place of WP:GNG (though unfortunately its often treated as such), but as a rule of thumb to determine at a glance which footballers are likely to meet WP:GNG. Finally, the "both clubs must be fully pro argument" comes from national cup competitions, where it make sense. In most national cups, by the time fully pro clubs can play against each other, it'll be far enough into the season that you're average cup match is going to receive about as much coverage, if not more, than your average league match, especially if its between to higher division clubs. This clearly not the case in Europa League qualifying. By the group stage, maybe even the play-off round, it probably is. I'd go so far as to say that if a semi-pro club reached that stage of the competition, their players would probably notable, but barring exception circumstances, which is clearly not the case here, the qualifying rounds simply do not receive the kind of coverage necessary to confer notability on the players playing therein. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is a long-standing consensus that playing in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues, regardless of the "level" of the competition, is considered notable as per passing WP:NFOOTY. No-one is questioning the creation of dozens of articles after the first round of the Football League Cup, and a similar AfD would probably have been speedy kept, but when we are talking about a player in a Cypriotic league, people are actually considering deleting it. Clear case of English-speaking WP:BIAS. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a longer-standing concensus that 90 minutes of play in a fully-pro league (which is a level above what we have here) isn't enough if the article cannot satisfy the GNG - as is the case here. There's no point in having this article when reliable sources providing significant coverage are not available. Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is plenty of consensus that playing one match is not enough when it comes to former players. But if you take a look a this AfD: Articles for deletion/Jared Jeffrey (4th nomination), you'll see that a player that was deleted for failing GNG was kept after he had played 79 minutes in a fully pro league even though the subject still failed GNG. In principle I agree with you, but every article that was deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY is recreated once NFOOTY is met while still failing GNG, and in this case I am trying to explain that Laifis is also passing NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a poor example because it was likely that the article satisfied the GNG prior to his first appearance in MLS (I said so in the 3rd AfD disuscion). Here we have a clear failure to meet GNG, and a far weaker case for keeping the article. Jogurney (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Accusations of bias are completely unfounded here, Mentoz. You've also blatantly ignored the fact that the consensus is for only the main stages of the tournament - and your example, the first round of the League Cup, still fits that. Consensus for qualifying rounds is equally clear; that they're not enough on their own to satisfy notability. And we've had Greek-speaking editors coming in and saying that it fails GNG. Clear case of not assuming good faith, and/or not reading other people's statements correctly/at all. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I failed to assume good faith, but would you please guide me to the consensus where it says that playing for Swansea City in the Europa League against Malmö FF is worth less in terms of notability than playing a league-cup match for Swansea City against Barnsley? I believe this discussion at WT:FOOTY from September 2012 tells the contrary. From my point of view we should have the same rules for the English cups as for the European cups, and if it isn't then there is bias. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have the same rules for all cups. If you play in the qualifying stages, that isn't regarded as being enough for notability. If this wasn't the case, then we'd have an insane number of lower-league players. If you play in the main stages, be that the group, or the knockout stages, then it is enough. The first round of the League Cup is in the main stage of the tournament, whereas the qualification rounds for the Europa League are not. I'm not sure why you referenced an MLS player in here, because league appearances are a separate argument. I'm also a little dubious of the claim that the Cypriot league is fully pro, even after reading the reference, but there we go. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In August 2011, I asked HERE whether a player making his debut in the Europa League playoff round (the round before the group stage) would be notable, and if it made a difference if both teams involved in the match were fully pro. The replies varied: either a player appearing for an FPL club became notable whatever the competition, or a match involving a non-FPL team wouldn't count. But what none of the respondents said was that appearing in a qualifying round wasn't enough full stop end of. So I duly created an article on Akwasi Asante, based on his two-minute cameo once the pride of the English second division was 3–0 up on their way to the group stage. Now it was a decent small article at the time, and contained pretty well everything I could find out about Mr Asante apart from his being a fan of Ruud van Nistelrooy, but I don't think it passed GNG. It takes a bit of work to find enough in the English-language media to make an article about an 18-year-old player with 2 minutes onfield experience that looks at first glance as if it might pass GNG. But when relevant sources are in a foreign language, particularly in one with a non-Latin alphabet, it takes rather more than a bit of work. Most editors of en.wiki don't read Greek. Who'd expect them to? Bias towards subjects with sources in English is totally natural, and isn't restricted to football. Have a look at WP:Systemic bias: there's even a wikiproject dedicating to countering it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've expanded the article a little, and added some references, so there's a basis for some more knowledgeable editor to work from if the article is kept, or alternatively if it's undeleted again in the future. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2013 (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.