Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stambolziev (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   Delete Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Stambolziev
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Has not played in profesional league, not notable. Contested PROD. First AfD was never transcluded or even referenced on the article page. — Jeff G. ツ 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. nom is correct in stating that he has not played at highest professional level. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced, passes WP:GNG. Only fails WP:ATHLETE on a technicality, due to the contractual/compensation dispute with Bristol City. Eliteimp (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the sentence claiming that he's only kept out of the first team due to that dispute is unsourced - who's to say he'd have played first-team football anyway....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. More discussion is needed on whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I fixed up and closed the first AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – As long as there's no proof of any professional first team appearances, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. — Luxic (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps you misread the relisting comment? This discussion is about WP:GNG, thanks. Eliteimp (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:GNG states that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. As far as I know, consensus is to follow WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N, when it comes to footballers. So, unless it's proved he's notable for something else other than his football career, I can't see why he should be on Wiki. — Luxic (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually ATHLETE and FOOTY state A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability, so they do not trump GNG. Nobody disputes that Stambolziev fails these dubious criteria but I contend that he passes GNG, specifically by recieving significant coverage in third-party, reliable secondary souces. In the sources supplied he certainly gets "more than a trivial mention" though he "need not be the main topic of the source material" in any event. Eliteimp (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to point out is that in GNG the key word is presumption. That is, significant coverage in third-party, reliable secondary souces gives a presumption of notability, but does not assure it. That's why we have specific notability guidelines for each subject, I think. — Luxic (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider a topic that passes WP:GNG to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, as long as it does not violate What Wikipedia is not (that is what the "presumption" of notability refers to). In this situation, I am not convinced that Robert Stambolziev passes GNG so I cannot support retention. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Luxic certainly provides a novel interpretation of the policy, but I remain convinced that if WP:GNG is met then the article is notable and should remain. Contributions here which evince a preference for WP:ATHLETE, while doing nothing to dispute or even address the claim to WP:GNG don't carry much weight in my eyes. I'm sure the closing admin will note that no-one here has credibly challenged the WP:RSs or the claim to WP:GNG when they hand down their judgement. Eliteimp (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been on this site for years and as far as I recall, footballers failing WP:FOOTY/N have always been deleted, regardless of any significant coverage of their youth/amateur careers. So, rather than a novel interpretation of mine, I'd call it consesus (which, of course, you may not agree with). — Luxic (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete  per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, I looked at a few, and all were either passing mentions or broken links. In this Google News Archive search, I was unable to find significant coverage that discussed Stambolziev's life. I consider this article from the BBC, though about Stambolziev, to be insufficient to establish notability because it lacks depth. If Eliteimp can provide links to two reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Stambolziev (and more depth than the BBC article I mentioned above), I will reconsider my position. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In these discussions there is a tendency to override WP:GNG by pretending any and every source supplied is "trivial". In addition to the those in the article, I found and  within a couple of minutes. I don't understand your request for coverage discussing Stambolziev's life in depth - surely the notability attaches to his career as a footballer? As far as I can see there are numerous reliable third-party sources which are wholly and/or explicitly to do with that. Eliteimp (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sources are not enough to cause me to change to keep in that they contain little information about his life and seem to be news reports that contain little depth (for example, little of this article contains little secondary information about Stambolziev himself &mdash; I count three sentences about him and the rest of the article being composed of excerpts from an interview). However, these sources are enough to cause me to strike my delete vote and switch to neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about these: 1 or 2? Eliteimp (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my view, Luxic is absolutely right. We have to remember that both WP:ATH and WP:GNG are guidelines that give rise to presumptions, not guarantees of notability. With that in mind, neither "trumps" the other. This person clearly fails WP:ATH, which is the community's most generous inclusion criterion. On the other hand, his case on GNG is marginal at best - the sources appear provide isolated sports news coverage of events in his career rather than in depth biographical material. So in my view any presumption caused by the subject meeting the GNG - which is weak - is outweighed by his clear failure to meet the objective criteria of WP:ATH. Only with this approach can we mitigate the randomness and unpredictability of the GNG with sensible objective standards of notability.  At the end of the day, notability is about being "worthy of note", and it is only in special cases that a non-professional footballer in England is likely to be worthy of note.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Orderinchaos 10:12, 29 June 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.