Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Zúniga


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Víctor Zúniga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article was prodded about five years ago and contested without any reason. – Michael (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - standard case of an individual who is supposed to be notable for football, not being notable, due to not playing international senior football or playing in a fully professional league. This is in addition to not having reliable sources cover this individual's achievements. C 679 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear case of a non-notable footballer: has not played in a fully pro league, represented his country at senior level or received significant coverage in reliable sources failing both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Although normally there would be a clear consensus in this discussion, this AfD was not properly transcluded in the daily log. I have accordingly procedurally relisted it to allow for additional discussion to occur.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 17:19, 13 March 2013 (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.