Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Frias


 * 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. Simply saying "Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY" is not an acceptable argument, particularly when editors have said the subject doesn't, with reasoning. I am happy to restore to user space or a draft if requested. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Tony Frias

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 15 minutes for Maritimo. Cited sources are nowhere near enough for an encyclopedic article, given the lack of sporting achievements. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails GNG. I suspect this article is an autobiography. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears he also played professionally for Lusitânia F.C. S.C. Lusitânia so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. There may well be sources in Portuguese. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are linking the wrong club, and the league he played in, the Segunda Divisao B, was not professional. Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Frias does not meet NFOOTY, which only recognizes the top two Portuguese divisions as being "fully professional" for the sake of satisfying NFOOTY. Lusitania was in the third division when Frias played there. Whether there might be sources in Portuguese is irrelevant; the GNG requires not that the theoretical existence of reliable sources providing substantial coverage to the subject be alleged, but that such sources need to be produced.   Ravenswing     23:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake over Lusitania, I thought the fact that they are a professional club is enough. But he does (just) meet NFOOTBALL because of his single appearance for Maritimo.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – playing in the Primeira Liga confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, this was a snarky rationale, but I don't particularly care at the moment. Frias also meets GNG, with both of the articles already on the page (broken currently, but accessible through the Wayback Machine), as well as coverage such as this Boston Globe article or Soccer America or this from his time at Mount Ida. Unlike the nom's claims, there's enough sources to write an encyclopedic article; unlike Ravenswing's claim, he absolutely does meet NFOOTY through the appearance with Marítimo. And as to NGS's thought that this is an autobiography, then you'd better be able to provide some proof that Frias is a pro wrestling fan, because the article creator was also quite prolific there back in 2007. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * is just transfer news, and the 2 Newspapers.com clippings say "This clipping has been marked as not public."- are you able to mark them as public so people can check them (or just give the original URLs for them)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I just made them publicly viewable, but let me know if they still aren't showing up. I can also give the original URLs, but without a Newspapers.com subscription they won't be viewable either. That's just the reality of early American soccer coverage: just like early British coverage, it was almost entirely in print (until about 2010 and in some places even after that).Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take an actual look. As it happens, everything but the Dell'Abpa Globe article are casual mentions -- it would never occur to me to claim that a 42-word article met the "substantial coverage" bar the GNG sets -- or routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from bolstering notability. I stand by my vote; a single 15-minute stint does not immunize a subject from meeting the GNG. I'd be more impressed at "article needs improving" if any attempt was made to do so.    Ravenswing      14:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then would you complain if I actively attempted to improve the article (the same way I just did Steve Palacios) while this AFD is still ongoing? Back in 2019 I tried to do so at an article that was at AFD and was rebuked for doing so...but if there aren't the same complaints here, I'd love to overhaul this article. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Me? Good heavens, no.  I'm what editors looking for a cheap ad hominem slur call a deletionist, but the goal should be improved articles, and I'm not one of those cementheads who think that filing an AfD somehow puts a freeze on the article.  If you improve it to the point where I change my mind on deletion, that's a win all around, right?  Go for it.   Ravenswing      17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL and scrapes by WP:GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as he passes NFOOTY, and barely passes GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (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.