Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Piskor


 * 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. (although the nominator has withdrawn their nom, there are still valid Delete !votes). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Piskor

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer that fails WP:GNG, and who has never played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Being the top goalscorer in an amateur league isn't notable enough for an article on wikipedia. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Piskor is notable by virtue of coverage in reliable sources, including the national newspaper of record, Luxemburger Wort, as cited in the article. WP:NFOOTBALL details criteria for presumptions of notability.  I would, however, also contend that being named the best footballer in a country (as Piskor was last year) should lead to a presumption of notability. Bastin 16:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Do appearances in the Europa League such as this one count towards meeting WP:NSPORT? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the qualifying rounds for the Europa League and Champions League are not fully pro, precisely because non-fully-pro teams like Differdange compete in them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And that has exactly what relevance in an article that meets WP:GNG, per WP:ATHLETE's statement: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline? Bastin 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does he really meet WP:GNG though? The only sources that discuss him in any detail are this and this, but they come from the same publisher, so "are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". Since GNG requires multiple reliable sources, this isn't enough. Are there other sources about him that aren't in the article yet? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that you agree that references from other sources make it notable. Added two references from L'essentiel (the most-read newspaper in Luxembourg). Bastin 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's more like it. Keep as meeting the GNG per coverage like this and this. The counter-argument that someone will probably present is that the GNG discounts "routine sports journalism", but to my mind that goes beyond routine. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As the nominator, I'm now satisfied that he meets WP:GNG and willing to withdraw the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2010 (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.