Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilaix Moriba


 * 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. Despite not meeting WP:NFOOTY, the article still passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ilaix Moriba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This footballer fails WP:FOOTY as he has no appearances in professional football, and is classic example pf WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, I think he fails GNG as he's not a particularly noteworthy footballer with less than 4k Google News hits. I think we're hitting a slippery slope with youth/non-pro footballer pages getting approved, and if this one stands then pretty much every youth player in top football academies are eligible for a page. Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep definitely has a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so reaches WP:GNG. There are already several sources in the voice:, , , ... It is also quite easy to find other sources of the same type via a simple google search: Goal, Forbes, Total football analysis, 90min. Plus I really don't see how having "less than 4k Google News hits" comes even close to something that could be used as an argument here. A topic should be considered notable, even if there is only one really good source, as described in GNG. Also I don't think that the process that led to this AfD was quite appropriate: Ortizesp had tried to delete this article through a PRD one month ago, without notifying the author, and another user addressed this issue on his Talk page. Ortizesp then appeared to acknowledge that a PRD was not very appropriate in such a case. Still, he did exactly the same thing again yesterday, trying to get this article deleted via a PRD without notifying the creator, although a PROD is not supposed to be used more than once, and that it is only appropriate for uncontroversial deletions, which is clearly not the case here. --Coco (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This type of page 2 or even 3 months ago would have been deleted, it looks like there might have been a shift in what is allowable at WP:FOOTY. I think you are taking this personally, I am just surprised that there is even support to keep it. Also, it's not a rule that I have to notify you, it's just good practice and I am getting a handle on Twinkle right now. I am obviously vested in this case, as I also create footballers pages, and the arguments made here are relevant to future articles I may take. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not taking this personally, I have no problem with people questioning articles that I'm involved in, and there is no issue with this AfD per se, but I am precisely questioning the specific way you handled all that came before, not being in line with WP good practices. And the way you used WP:PROD twice is clearly against its own rules, and it is quite hard to miss: "an article or file can be proposed for uncontroversial deletion, but only once ". I don't think it is very appropriate to keep on talking about this here, but if you want we can go to your talk page if you want to discuss this any further. Regarding the thing people did on this project 2-3 months ago, frankly I have no idea, but all AfD I've seen about this kind of player who fails NFOOTY but passes GNG always lead to a keep. Furthermore if there actually where cases of such players getting deleted, that would be a quite poor understanding of both GNG and NFOOTY. In fact WP:NFOOTY clearly sais that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". As a matter of fact there is no kind of project-specific (additional!) criteria that would overrule the GNG. That of course does not mean that you can create any page of non-pro footballers, but when there are good sources as described in GNG (and that can always be debated), yes. Because Wikipedia is not here to decide which subject is worthy of being in its encyclopedia according to each user's subjective values and opinions, but we have to look outside of WP to see which subject does have a significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If a player has gained such genuine media coverage, then whether he as played a pro game or not is pretty irrelevant. Hope this really help you for you next contributions. Sincerely, --Coco (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 11:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG though it fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2020 (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.