Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Francisco Cevallos, Jr.


 * 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) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

José Francisco Cevallos, Jr.

 * – ( 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 Ecuadorian Serie A is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Ecuadorian Serie A has always been fully pro. It started as a tournament of the country's two regional professional leagues until they consolidated to form a proper league (for lack of a better description) in the late 1960s. The league never when back to amateur status. In addition, all clubs within Ecuador's league system are also affiliated with regional professional organizations. In the case of Pancho, Jr., LDU Quito is affiliated with AFNA (Asociacion de Futbol No Amateur de Pichincha; the Association of Non-Amateur Football of Pichincha). And before you question the "non-Amateur" part of that name, I believe the clubs in the third division (Segunda Categoria), who are affiliated with these regional organizations, are semi-pro.
 * May I suggest next time instead of proposing the deletion of a lot of articles, verify that a league is fully pro. Just because it is not listed in WP:FPL, does not mean it is not professional. It only means it is not been added. Digirami (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as there is no evidence he has played in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 10:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as there is no evidence he has played in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. Not currently accepted consensus that the Ecuadorean league is FPL. This is not the place for such a discussion. Were a separate discussion to establish consensus that it is then the article can easily be resurrected. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:FOOTYN as Ecuadorean league is fully professional. There are no less than 5 copies of this article in other languages; I'm concerned that the very thought of whether a player for such a well known team like LDU Quito would meet WP:FOOTYN is a demonstration of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are numerous errors with the above comment. Firstly, the Ecuadorean top division is not deemed to be a fully professional league by WP:FOOTY. There is always scope to debate this and create a new consensus, but AfD is not the correct arena. The fact that other wikis have articles on this player is not relevant as their consensuses are debated and established completely separately. Finally, notability is not inherited, simply because a club is claimed to be well known is no reason that every player who plays for them should have an article, that is the precise reason why WP:NFOOTY exists. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline, no counter-arguements have been presented. Whether or not it meets FOOTYN is unclear but certainly not established. And since Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source, versions of the article in different languages add no reason to keep the English-language edition. C 679 14:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)