Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrubens Dupalus


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrubens Dupalus

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources (all I could find were databases or things like the facebook page of his club). The "national" team for this French "collectivity" with some 35,000 inhabitants is not FIFA-recognised. But in the end, the most important aspect is that there just isn't any real coverage of this person Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep-guidelines for notability say that players have to play for a FIFA-RECOGNIZED team, not necessarily a FIFA member. The CONCACAF Nations League is sanctioned by a FIFA member confederation and Dupalus has also appeared against other nations that are themselves FIFA members. Precedent has been established that these players are in fact considered notable under the guidelines.--Gri3720 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These NSPORTS guidelines are being debated and reevaluated now as they are way too inclusive and not a good indicator of notability at all, as indicated by e.g. this very article. The national teams for such sub-national or otherwise very small entities are filled with a few notable and many non notable players. Fram (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We must debate this article's notability by current guidelines, not by POTENTIAL future alterations.--Gri3720 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That´s the eternal argument used to maintain poor guidelines. Afds are kept because they meet a guideline, and guidelines are kept because they only describe what happens at Afd, and don´t prescribe it. Fram (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily arguing that the guidelines shouldn't be looked at from time to time to see if they still meet their purpose, but they are currently what they are. Until the group reaches an agreement on any changes, which you say are currently being discussed, you don't get to unilaterally decide to disregard to try to force a deletion. Also, please link to the current discussion that you mention. I was unable to locate any such discussion in the archives or list of current discussions.--Gri3720 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy)/Sports notability Fram (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion you mention in no way shows a clear consensus. In fact it seems opposition to changing the guideline has the advantage. In either case this proposal to amend/throw out the current guidelines will fail without a clear consensus. And AGAIN, you cannot (well, I guess you can TRY) delete an article based on a hypothetical future change in policy.--Gri3720 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - 0 official international caps means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as it is currently written...and more importantly fails GNG. GiantSnowman 19:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NFT is poor at evaluating official and non-official games. Nehme1499 19:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete does not even meet our ludicrously over broad NFOOTBALL guidelines, we clearly need to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't find any detailed coverage, even when searching in ProQuest, DDG and other search engines Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:26, 25 February 2022 (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.