Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Cotulio Bossa

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Cotulio Bossa

edit
Matheus Cotulio Bossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article still fails WP:GNG. While it technically passes WP:NSPORT, let's apply some WP:COMMONSENSE here. Playing a grand total of one minute in a regional league doesn't make him any more notable than before the last deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when he passes WP:NFOOTBALL there is no need to pass WP:GNG. And if we apply WP:COMMONSENSE - this article is about a young footballer who recently made his debut in a WP:FPL, it's not like it's a article about a retired footballer who played a total of 60 seconds in a WP:FPL throughout his career. Those 60 seconds is just the beginning of the rest of his career. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire, GNG prevails over NFOOTY. The latter guideline assumes that the subject meets GNG without the need to look for sources. In fact, NFOOTY itself states: "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.". However, if it's shown that the subject has not received such coverage (which makes sense, 60 seconds is far too little time for someone to attract media attention), then the article may well be deleted. Of course, I don't think anyone objects to recreation once he gets more playing time, we just feel it's too soon now. – Kosm1fent 09:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I remember correctly, there were another deletion discussion not long ago, where WFC nominated another footballer for deletion as he only had played 1 match, but the closing admin stated that when WP:NFOOTBALL is met, there is no need to meet WP:GNG, but I can't find that deletion discussion (only found this one, which is more or less the same as this one). Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's correct. It's generally understood that if WP:NFOOTY is met then the player can be presumed notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate being notified of this discussion, and out of courtesy I will not explicitly !vote in this discussion. The AfD in question was of Adam Thompson, who has since gone on to establish notability beyond doubt by playing a lot of league games and international football. If I remember correctly, the closing admin has since left the project under a cloud.

            Either way, it has since been clarified that the GNG does apply to everything in NSPORTS, and that while NSPORTS is considered a good indicator, it is not an automatic free pass to an article. "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." NFOOTY is simply intended as a starting point – if a player meets NFOOTY, then it is considered likely that the coverage is out there to meet the GNG. But it goes without saying that the more borderline the case, the more convincing the GNG argument needs to be. —WFC— 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • But still WP:NSPORTS states (bolded in the lead) that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (Though this is contradicted later in the same lead). After reading Adam Thompson's AfD and the following DrV, I get your point, and would probably change my vote if we were talking about a former player, or a guy where the chances for more playtime in a FPL were very limited. But this guy is a 19-year-old that made his debut about a month ago (Even though wikipedia is not a crystallball, he will probably play more then 60 seconds for the next decade) and if it's get deleted it would need a DRV to decide whether GNG is met when he plays his second and third match... Mentoz86 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • NFOOTY is the sensible way to go when it comes to players from a football-crazy country who play for a team with a 40,000 capacity stadium. If they played in England for Chelsea (for example), would they receive enough media coverage to push them past GNG? Almost certainly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If he played for Chelsea, maybe he would. But he doesn't play for Chelsea, and his appearance during injury time didn't gather significant media coverage. So he doesn't deserve an article. – Kosm1fent 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the subject plays in Brazil. If your (Suriel) claim that he has received coverage is ture, then produce it and I'll happily withdraw the nomination, but until then the existence of coverage is speculative only, which is insufficient to establish notability. I would also like to remind you to please remains civil. Referring to those who disagree with you as idiots does little to advance the discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I thought I'd made my point clearly but let's try again. My assertions are:
(1)Players for a major Brazilian team are likely to receive as much media attention in their home country as a player for a major Premier League team does in Europe.
(2) This is unlikely to be reflected in the Western media which focusses on the West.
(3) Wikipedia itself reflects this media bias (WP:BIAS) and steps should be taken to counter it.
(4) WP:NFOOTY's "Players who have appeared... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" is a guideline which takes points 1-3 into consideration and should be followed in this case.
(5) If you want to report me for being uncivil then go for it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You (Suriel) seem to be under the mistaken impression that only coverage in what you refer to as the western media is acceptable as significant coverage. If a footballer has received significant coverage in any media, western or otherwise, he/she is notable. The brazillian media, especially in football related matters is easily accesible. If you want to overcome demographic bais, I would suggest inundating the encyclopedia with the sources you claim exist in the non-western media rather rather than speculating what these sources may or may not cover. All that being said, I feel we are moving too far into the general, and are losing sight of the specifics of this particular article. At present, I have your word against my research as to whether or not sources exist. I mean no disrespect, but I prefer to trust the latter. Given your incorrect assertion about the inaccuracy of the nomination, I can only assume that your your research was less rigorous. My research included searches in the Brazillian news media, and uncovered nothing more than a few statistical player profiles and a few match reports, the very definition of routine sports journalism. Finally, in rereading all of what I've just said, I realise that I come across as increbly patronising, and I appoligise for that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that at all!! How can I make it any clearer that I am entirely against any notion that notability is equated soley by coverage in the Western media? Additionally, I've not claimed to have sources and I've not in any way given my word that such sources exist. Clearly, there's an amount of accidental misunderstanding here so I think it's best I leave this debate alone now. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this arguement is that the claim that the absence of coverage is due to a western media bias is simply false. I have conducted a rigorous search including the brazillian media have nothing that comes close to significant coverage. What it boils down to is this: The article was previously deleted since its subject was not notable. The only difference being the sixty seconds Mr. Bossa spent on a football pitch. The main question then must be, did those sixty seconds significantly change the subject? In applying common sense, the answer is that things have not changed significantly. Ergo, the article remains unotable and should deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matheus_Cotulio_Bossa&oldid=1136471914"