Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Cálix


 * 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. The consensus is that this footballer meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cristian Cálix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in a fully professional league nor has be represented his nation at senior level or at the Olympuc Games. Simione001 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you User:Simione001 check for GNG sources? A quick Google news search finds lots of recent media coverage. And two of the older sources in Spanish Wikipedia article es:Cristian Cálix look pretty significant here and here. It would be unusual for a player to have had that many starts with Marathon not to have gained significant media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one - maybe. The second is just a routine article about his transfer to Atlas. Simione001 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where, User:Simione001 does it say that GNG coverage can't be routine? Normally I see arguments that a paragraph or two in a local paper about a transfer is routine, and doesn't indicate notability. This was 11 paragraphs in a major publication. Nfitz (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – While the La Prensa article might count as SIGCOV, that's the only example I can find. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NFOOTY. – Levivich 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - More than enough to satisfy GNG: La Prensa, La Prensa, Diez, Diez, Diez, Radio HRN, AS and Diario Más - that's not even counting the heaps of transfer-related stuff. Added to the fact the player has just joined Real Monarchs in the (WP:FPL-listed) USL Championship, so a NFOOTY pass most likely isn't far away - Draftify at worst. R96Skinner (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw those sources but didn't see them as in-depth or non-routine enough to meet GNG. La Prensa 2019 looks like a standard new-guy-on-the-team interview. La Prensa 2017 is the one everyone seems to agree is WP:SIGCOV. Diez Apr 2019 is six sentences about a game in which he scored his first goal for Atlas Sub-20. Diez Mar 2019 is five sentences about his debut. Diez 2018 is an interview about contract negotiations. Radio HRN is a three-sentence game report. AS 2018 appears to be the same interview as Diez 2018, just shorter. Diario Mas is three sentences about his debut. Other than La Prensa 2017, I'm struggling to see how any of those sources count towards GNG. – Levivich 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You dismiss La Prensa 2019, an in-depth interview in one of the nation's largest newspapers as routine and "looks like a standard new-guy-on-the-team interview"? I typically don't see any coverage of such non-notable players in major newspapers, unless they die suddenly or rob a bank. Sure, it's routine to have in-depth interviews of notable people in big newspapers. How can you suggest this doesn't meet GNG? Nfitz (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * La Prensa (Honduras) has a circulation of 61,000 (and Diez (Honduras) is La Prensa's sports paper). The biggest difference between La Prensa 2017 and La Prensa 2019 is that the 2017 article includes independent reporting in the publication's own voice. The 2019 article is a Q&A–all the content is coming from the player, not from the journalist. So I don't see it as independent, but as an WP:ABOUTSELF source that should not be used to establish notability. Another difference is that in the 2019 interview, almost all of the questions asked aren't about the player, but about the player joining a new team and how he feels about that. So it's not in-depth coverage of the player; it's the player giving his opinions on a transfer. In the 2017 article, there is more content about the player himself. Finally, even if you count La Prensa 2019 as WP:SIGCOV, it's still the same source as La Prensa 2017, so we don't have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The non-La Prensa sources put forward are Radio HRN (3 sentences) and Diario Mas (3 sentences). (AS 2018 appears to be a condensed version of the Diez 2018 interview linked above, so same source as La Prensa.) – Levivich  17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An interview in a major newspapers is not WP:ABOUTSELF. ABOUTSELF refers to self-published and questionable sources - not one of the largest newspapers in the nation. Multiple sources aren't a firm WP:GNG requirement - there isn't even a firm requirement to have more than one GNG source. You seem to be far more interested in non-existent rules - your time would surely be better spent improving the article. Are there other sources ... possibly ... I haven't even looked yet - I was simply shocked at how much I found in a few seconds, which clearly demonstrates a WP:BEFORE fail. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That so-called "BEFORE fail" would be more clearly demonstrated if you posted an example of WP:SIGCOV that doesn't come from La Prensa. – Levivich 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did above, but you wrongly claimed that in-depth interviews don't count. There's also no end of coverage in Diez (which is a separate publication from La Prensa, despite the shared ownership. How is this not notable? Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diez and La Prensa are published by the same publisher, Organización Publicitaria, S.A. aka es:Grupo OPSA. (Our article Diez (Honduras) redirects to La Prensa (Honduras).) If you look at the Diez article you link to, almost everything said in the journalist's voice are the same things said in the journalist's voice in the La Presna 2017 article, with similar details/anecdotes (used to be a coffee cutter, five siblings, loves his parents). There's sigcov in La Prensa and its sports paper Diez, but there isn't sigcov outside of that (that has been brought forward so far), so I don't see the "multiple sources" part of GNG being met. – Levivich 19:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other Diez articles - you are cherry picking. There's more than enough material here from reliable sources to write an article; arguing that there's a convergence of media ownership in a remote part of a third-world nation, surely raises concerns of systemic bias! There are no hard-and-fast rules - you are applying black-and-white rules that don't exist! Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what WP:GNG says about the need to have multiple sources, and why I think the Diez and La Prensa articles all count as one source, esp. the parts about multiple publications from the same organization and about "restating the same information": There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability ... Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. – Levivich 16:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and the WP:BASIC part of WP:NBIO goes even further: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (emphasis added) Almost-identical language is at WP:NATHLETE. – Levivich 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless no Honduran newspaper is a reliable source anymore, Cálix clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * La Prensa is just one of several newspapers in Honduras. It is based in the northwest region, in the city San Pedro Sula. There's also El Periódico, El Tiempo, La Tribuna, and El Heraldo, among others. See List of newspapers in Honduras (and this report by MediaLandscapes.org). Calix's first team was C.D. Marathon, which is a team in San Pedro Sula, where La Prensa is published. La Prensa and Diez are published by the same publisher. So what we have for SIGCOV is the local city paper reporting on the new guy on the local team, plus coverage in the sports paper that has the same owner as the local city paper. Quite to the point, what we don't have (yet) is SIGCOV in any of the other Honduran papers. So it's not even national coverage in his own country. I'm saying Diez should not be considered a separate source from La Prensa, nor should multiple publications within La Prensa or within Diez count as separate sources. It's not "discrediting" Honduran newspapers to point out that only one Honduran media company is actually writing about this, and it's because he played for the team in their home city. The two sources, Diez and La Prensa, aren't intellectually independent of each other; the Diez SIGCOV example pulls directly from the La Prensa article. To my eyes, it doesn't meet the "multiple" requirement as explained at NBIO, NATHLETE, etc. – Levivich 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And BTW, other editors may agree to disagree with my source analysis, but please don't tell me I'm discrediting Honduran newspapers or that my reasoning has no basis in policy. I come to my conclusions by applying our notability guidelines (e.g., that multiple sources must be intellectually independent of each other, that a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source) to the facts (e.g., La Prensa and Diez have the same owner; La Prensa is published in the city where the player plays; no other Honduran newspaper is publishing SIGCOV of the player). – Levivich 18:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a self-noted bias against football biographies and you're trying to delete this on a false technicality. Many newspapers share a publisher. La Prensa and Diez are two separate and distinct publications. Considering AS.com has written multiple articles on him, and he's received coverage in other locations such as, , or , that only San Pedro Sula is writing about him is simply untrue. Your reasoning has no basis in policy. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not have a bias against footballers, I have a bias in favor of our notability guidelines. Let's look at those four sources:
 * The only AS.com source I've seen put forward here is AS 4 Aug 2018, which is a summary of an interview in Diez (En entrevista con el Diario Diez ..., emphasis in original, referring to this Diez 4 Aug 2018 interview). That same Diez interview (which Nfitz posted above) takes almost everything said in the publication's own voice from the La Prensa 2017 article (see discussion of this point above). So AS 4 Aug 2018 = Diez 4 Aug 2018 = La Prensa 2017. I count those as the same source, and my reasoning is based in WP:GNG (Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.) and WP:NATHLETE ("Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable) ... A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.).
 * The first new source SF linked to in the above comment, Notiulti, does not appear to be a WP:RS to me, but even assuming that it is a reliable source, this is what it says about Calix: Cálix, who had already been summoned in the Copa MX to face the Pumas ... We must remember that Calix signed from last December 28 with Atlas, but you know what it is to sweat the skin of the "Foxes" when he added his first minutes with the U-20 team in the draw to zero goals against Morelia, and where he was booked with a yellow card. Not in-depth in my opinion.
 * The second source you link to appears to be a mirror of this Informador article (a Guadalajara paper), here's what it says about Calix: The 19-year-old forward Cristian Cálix decided not to continue with the Marathon of Honduras because he reached an agreement with the Atlas, which will be for four years. The young attacker is already in Mexico, to get the necessary medical studies and sign his contract. Cálix comes to Mexican soccer for the showcase that he offers, besides that economically he will be much better than with the Marathon ... The young attacker was not acquired by Españyol of the Spanish League, he was on trial but he did not convince, and in the Marathon he did things well. I don't see this as in-depth.
 * The third source you link to NTR Guadalajara, here's what it says about Calix: The Honduran Cristian Cálix is ​​close to defending the colors of the Atlas for the Clausura 2019. This element is a promise of his country that according to some sources in Central America did not renew his contract with the club Marathon to come to the Foxes. The catracho is a 19-year-old extreme midfielder who is also selected U-20, even participated in the past Central American and Caribbean Games in Colombia. Cálix is ​​in the sights of clubs such as Olimpia, Motagua and Real España, but Atlas has negotiated the advantage and could sign in the course of the week once it arrives in Guadalajara. Not seeing this one as in-depth enough to count as WP:SIGCOV, either. The only SIGCOV examples all appear to come from La Prensa/Diez. – Levivich 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all of those are in depth, though the notiulti.com doesn't appear to be a RS, you're right. If they were the only articles then he'd be borderline/a weak keep, but they're not. Diez.hn has written about Cálix - where he's mentioned in the headline! - at least 20 times. He's so notable La Prensa wrote a story on when his mother died. La Tribuna - owned by a different company than Diez or La Prensa - has mentioned Cálix over a dozen times in their headlines (and then invariably link to diariomas.com). SportingFlyer  T · C  22:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - probably scrapes by on GNG. GiantSnowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep easily meets GNG with some of the sources referenced in the article and others. Particularly this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:08, 13 July 2019 (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.