Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Galindo


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Galindo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable footballer - has never played at fully professional level therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Appearances for international youth teams do not confer notability. (PROD was removed by IP without comment) King of the  North   East  19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the  North   East  19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairly Strong Keep has wider notability, such as this article as well as an article in the Times on 11/05/09. This article also suggests Galindo has been called up to the national training squad for the full team. Having played for Bolivia at under 20 and 17 level I'd say that also suggests some notability well beyond a few mentions in a local newspaper or similar. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - Consensus at WP:FOOTY is that U-17, U-20, U-21 caps do not confer notability. If the kid plays for the full international team or joins a fully professional team the article would pass, but until he actually does, it fails WP:ATHLETE. Keeping it on the presumption that he will goes against WP:CRYSTAL. King of the  North   East  21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, I understand that, and tend to go for Delete in such cases. In this case, however, I think several articles in mainstream, non-local press suggest a general notability which is being met via WP:GNG. Certainly there have been other cases in other sports where there is considerably less coverage and the same level or less of WP:ATH which have led to keeping the article. I'm not overly fussed either way, but this feels much more like a keep, at least for now, than it does a delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as player currently fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, he fails WP:ATHLETE, however, the coverage and sources are sufficient for including (in my opinion). I vote against WP:ATHLETE guideline in this case. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete player fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. He also fails general notability at WP:N, the only non-trivial source from a reliable source is speculation on a transfer, which fails WP:CRYSTAL #3. --Jimbo[online] 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That he fails WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant, as he passes the more important test of WP:N with extensive media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three sources, two of which could be cosidered iffy are extensive? The only credible source on there fails WP:SPECULATION anyway. --Jimbo[online] 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, extensive removed. References look good to me. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and restore if he passes WP:ATHLETE in the future. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - added more references, please check the article. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:N, which supercedes WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Eusebeus (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. I agree that WP:N would trump that, but I don't think that the sources in the article quite meet the bar. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:24, 28 May 2009 (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.