Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivaylo Chochev


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ivaylo Chochev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Bulgarian Second Division is fully pro, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This prove that Bulgarian 2nd dev and bulgarian cup are Fully proffesional,so the player is profesional player. K.belev (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia by it's own standards is not a reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.pfl.bg/b-pfg - Then read the official BFL site ;) B group is profesional league K.belev (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The link does not explicitly say that the league is fully pro, and the name by itself is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Can be restored if he makes a league debut for CSKA Sofia. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation when one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 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.