Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Ginchev


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Ginchev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Alternative
 * Alternative

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has not played in single professional match Dudek1337 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played and made his debut in the Bulgarian A Football Group a Fully Professional League in 2011–12 A Group per this.While his appearances were in 2012 as a teenager the Subject is only 21 years and  and consensus is for giving him a grace period as he has made his debut in a WP:FPL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (changed from keep) his team indeed played in the top division in 2011-12, though with not much success, they were relegated twice in the meanwhile. Well, Ginchev was substituted in, and played 15 minutes, in one match there, according to the source (database). He also sat on the substitutes' bench during another game without coming in. Technically passes WP:NFOOTY. The nominator probably only saw that his team is now in the third division, and ran to AfD. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended. Although the nominator's rationale is incorrect, it is at this time doubtful whether the subject passes GNG, and I prefer not to opine after having been pointed out the uncertainty of what has been described by users more active in this area as the current consensus concerning the NFOOTY guideline. Kraxler (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I, personally, greatly appreciate and consider precedent, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. AfD guidelines say that any particular discussion should be decided on its own merits. Look at Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy: He played 13 games in one of the leagues listed at WP:FPL and was deleted. That's not a precedent but a reason to throw NFOOTY out the window, because the people who established it, do not abide by their own rules. Also, to say that WP:GNG "outweighs" NFOOTY is not COMMONSENSE. In case of a very slim pass or a fail, GNG can override NFOOTY because GNG is the more general rule, but in case somebody played several games, or full seasons in a league accepted at FPL, GNG becomes irrelevant, especially when the name is written in non-Roman script which makes it difficult to get sources. Anyway there is indeed the WP:ROUTINE coverage which can not establish notability but is enough after passing NFOOTY. Sorry for this somewhat fundamental post, but either the members of a certain project abide by their own rules, or they amend them. They should refrain from establishing rules and then openly disavow them. And now back to Ginchev, have you checked the web for coverage? If there's none, then you may !vote "delete" without citing other AfDs, and see what consensus will develop. Kraxler (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GNG is never irrelevant, it is the fundamental notability principle, the language that sources are in is irrelevant. If someone meets GNG then they are deemed notable, if someone meets any of the WP:NSPORT criteria they are not necessarily. NSPORT is explicit on this point at its very beginning stating: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. This individual played 15 minutes of football over four years ago according to Soccerway.
 * The citation of historic consensus in AfDs around players playing only handful of minutes some time ago not being inherently notable is essential as demonstrating per NSPORT that the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it is a consensus that has been held for a number of years. Google brings back very little in bulgarian, with the most detailed news items apparently being about a lawyer (Адвокат?) with the same name. I'm seeing little more than a mention by name in pretty much all of the others which seem to be about a footballer. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation of historic consensus may be used to explain or re-inforce a guideline. It may not be used for comparison of one article to another article, in the latter case it's an OTHERSTUFF argument. Please bear that in mind. Special notability guidelines for different areas are intended to serve a purpose: to save time and effort, avoiding to begin a fundamental discussion at every single AfD. If NFOOTY (which is very well defined, and has a corresponding list of leagues) can be thrown out of the window at the whim of any !voter, it does not serve any purpose. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Amend the guideline or abide by it. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, how could you expect that anybody takes your !votes seriously if you don't follow your own rules? See what happened at Articles for deletion/Bayan Fenwick, !voters are laughin at NFOOTY and ROUTINE, and the article has a good chance to be kept (even as "no consensus"). May anybody (certainly not me) cite it then everytime they need a "historical (no) consensus" to show that NFOOTY is irrelevant and GNG is very relative? Kraxler (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the rules are not hard and fast. GNG is fluid by definition and trumps NSPORT. There is no GNG here that I can see, even in local language sources, and clear consensus that GNG trumps NFOOTY in instances where an individual only just passes the subject specific guideline, for the simple reason that, as I have already noted NSPORT states: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. You possibly have a point that NFOOTY should be amended to formalise the consensus I noted above, but that has not been necessary to this point and does not lessen the value of the consensus as it can still clearly be shown. I'll comment on Bayan Fenwick on your talk page to avoid derailing the discussion here. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per, who has cheekily nicked my wording from a past similar AFD ;) GiantSnowman 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subjects like this one where WP:NFOOTY is technically met based on a very small number of appearances, but that comprehensively fail the general notability guideline clearly fall into the section in the lede of WP:NFOOTY that says: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find nothing online that suggests this player is notable and don't think that being subbed in for 15 minutes in a less competitive league should suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - While technically he did have 16 minutes appearing in final game of the season on a team playing in the league listed at WP:FPL, at the end of the match the team was relegated to the second tier, and he remains with the team, now in the third tier - and still doesn't seem to be able to make the squad. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2015 (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.