Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iñaki Peña


 * 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. Some coverage is noted, but no clear consensus one way or the other whether this meets GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Iñaki Peña

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ✉ 03:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep played 38 games in the Spanish Second Division. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; his appearances for Barcelona B were in the third-tier Segunda División B as confirmed by this. you might wish to reconsider. GiantSnowman 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahhh right, they were relegated. Still potentially satisfies WP:GNG as there have been at least four feature articles written on him, but they're Euro-style and short such as . Very weak keep or draftify, but at worst WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need a review of SportingFlyer's soruces.
 * Delete — Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment he actually does meet WP:GNG, and he's been promoted to become Barcelona's second choice goalkeeper, which is very notable, even if he doesn't technically pass WP:NFOOTY yet. Stuff like: . At worst this is WP:TOOSOON for a few days. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG with references provided above. Sometimes I wonder if we should have different guidelines for backup keepers ... he has some 20+ games on the bench as the backup keeper for one of the best teams on the planet. And yet doesn't meet NFOOTBALL. On the other hand, such players will always meet GNG, with a little searching. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - seems about enough to pass GNG Spiderone  07:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete He doesn't meet NFOOTBALL and most or all of the articles are just about how he played backup for other injured players. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about his career though, like tournaments won or any notable stats about him. The justification that the article should be kept because there must be sources about him is rather weak also. I'm pretty sure people looked for proper sources. It's not like the article can't be recreated once he's actually notable for something if he ever is. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been the backup goalkeeper for the biggest team in the world for the last seven games, ever since COVID took. I did look for, and found, proper sources, which makes sense considering he's one of I think 18 people listed on the teamsheet week in week out for one of the top five most important football teams anywhere. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Currently second-choice keeper for one of the best teams on the planet (F.C. Barcelona). Also passes WP:GNG. It seems a bit ridiculous to me that playing 5 minutes for a League 2 team in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy infront of 500 people 10 years ago gets you a WP:NFOOTY pass, but sitting on the bench for 7 games at F.C. Barcelona doesn't. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Arnau Tenas was on the bench yesterday, not Peña, aside from Neto (footballer, born 1989). So who's the "third-choice"? As @ said, he doesn't pass NFOOTBALL, most of the articles talking about him are stating that he will be on the bench or something like that. If we allow pages that pass NFOOTBALL per the amount of coverage (which is gigantic in the case of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United and so on), then all players of the B-team will pass NFOOTBALL as well. MYS 77 ✉  00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm fine with that. All but 4 of the players on the B Team roster have articles anyway. Players playing for Barcelona B would definetely be full time as well so should really pass WP:NFOOTBALL. If someone can get an article for a substitute appearance in a minor competition for a League Two team then Barcelona's temporary second choice keeper should get an article too. They are much more notable in my eyes. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, as I edited the article to cover the good sources on him, not these unimportant "matchday list" references which add nothing to the article substancially, in my opinion. As you all can see, there's not much aside from those normal matchday lists to make him pass WP:GNG. He's mainly a promising goalkeeper whose status is currently growing due to the rumours of his promotion to the first team squad next season. For now, I still think it's WP:TOOSOON. MYS 77 ✉  03:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.