Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Beloya (2nd nomination)


 * 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 *without* leave to speedy renominate. This AFD was made while the ink on the first one was still wet so even though the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", I'm going to consider the !votes on both AFDs together. In both AFDs we more or less have the same editors making the same arguments so I am going to close this AFD the same way Deryck C closed the first one. If someone disagrees with this close then they are welcome to file a DRV but do not turn right around and renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Beloya
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and as per comments from the previous nomination, the subject has received coverage but no sources address the subject directly in detail therefore fails WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject has made no professional appearances, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, despite contrary arguments in the last AfD, there is nothing beyond routine coverage of Beloya in any reliable sources. Local sources and football reports are not helpful; a mention in a national source outside of the sports pages would be necessary for him to meet WP:GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Beloya seems to be more than the normal football player, multi-national, with remarkable goal scoring skills and has been noticed by several news sources (as well as the national assistant team manager). In my view, the coverage is more than routine reporting of football matches. Meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Nowhere near enough "significant coverage" to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the same rationale as last week, nothing has changed, so why the renomination? I agree that this person fails the notability guidelines for footballers. However, the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems as if you're completely ignoring the rationale of those who have voted for delete.  Those news reports/match recaps do not comply with "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG, sources address the subject directly in detail.  It seems you've got a different definition/understand of "significant coverage". Banana Fingers (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems you're completely ignoring the fact a full debate was concluded only 4 days before you re-nominated this article for deletion. It is complete and utter time wasting to immediately re-nominate because you didn't get the result you were hoping for! Sionk (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems you got a stick up your ass. What the hell do you think this is, a personal crusade to get articles of my choice deleted for the fun of it?!?!?!  There was no consensus, simple as!  And it clearly doesn't meet notability criteria!  So I don't know what the hell you're on about! Banana Fingers (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see it meeting WP:GNG. Edinburgh   Wanderer  00:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by User:UltraExactZZ in the previous discussion, as and . I don't see common sense in re-opening a discussion three days later its first closing. Cavarrone (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No common sense?!?! lol!  There was no consensus!  And those two links that you've provided still doesn't pass the "address the subject in directly detail" criteria of WP:GNG! Banana Fingers (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Before I nominated this the first time, I proded it. However, User:Alpha Quadrant deproded it stating that it passes criteria #2 of WP:NFOOTBALL.  I tried telling him that it doesn't but he never replied so I took it to AfD.  He joins in and back peddles and all of a sudden agrees that the subject doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL but argues that news sources with things like, "Beloya scored in the nth minute..." or "Beloya has been named in squad abc...." more than passes WP:GNG.  Yet I'm the one being called useless and a time waster for opening up a second Afd after there was no consensus on the first.  Ya... Brilliant, frickin brilliant!! Banana Fingers (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I don't see is how a discussion closed with a clear no-consensus should give a different outcome just three days later and without new arguments to support deletion. I just hope, if even this discussion (as it is probable) will be closed with a no consensus, that the nominator will avoid to re-nominate the article for the third time a couple of days later and with the same arguments. Cavarrone (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (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.