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. The arguments that he had never played at the highest level of his sport were very convincing. Therefore the community feels he fails WP:ATHLETE. Further, the comments indicating that his lack of professional (or notable) activities reduces his notability below the threshold of WP:N and WP:BIO were also convincing. Should additional offline citations be verified as having notability outside of his perceived athletic potential, the article could be recreated. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Pacheco[edit]

Dani Pacheco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Yes, this has been deleted before, but with a recent confusion over a singer with the (virtually) same name was recreated. This version is better referenced and may meet notability guidelines. However, the references all confirm that he is a youth player, and he has not played in the first team, so appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet competed at the highest pro level.

Nominating to get a clear community consensus, so we can hopefully put this to bed, one way or the other. --Ged UK (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reserve League players fail WP:ATHLETE. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Per nom. Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Livna-Maor (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since the reserves are not fully professional, he also fails the project guidelines at WP:Footy/Notability. Even though he has received media coverage, it's all been at the local level, so I don't think the general notability guidelines should save the article. If he gets called up to the first team, if he's loaned to and plays for a fully professional side, or if he's selected to Spain's national team, we can revisit this decision, but until then, he's not a player of sufficient notability to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I created this article in a hurry as a result of the discussion about the deletion of the musician's article. I did too rushed a job, including with my quick sourcing. Dani Pacheco the footballer has received media coverage beyond just some mentions at the local level; for example, there was coverage in El Mundo and on EFE about how he was signed by an English team at such a young age. Hang on while I dig up some of the sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references includes coverage by national newspapers, which means he meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When a subject receives substantive coverage from a variety of sources, over a sustained period, that's an indication that there is sufficient interest for Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. I think that's the spirit of the notability guidelines. We do not need to go to secondary notability guidelines in cases like that. I've now added not just coverage in El Mundo and EFE, but also The Journal and the Sunday Mirror. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know i nominated it, but these additional references are enough for me that he meets the notability guidelines. Notability trumps Athlete and the Footy guidelines. I don't want to withdraw my nomination though as it will only come up again. --Ged UK (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nomination cannot be withdrawn so long as there are users who have !voted to delete the article. I'm about to look at the article and see what the new sources bring to the table. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not only has the extent of coverage in the sources been expanded, but one of the sources revealed that he played for the Spanish national under-17 team. That pushes him over the top of the notability hurdle in my mind. (Further, the source says he got a hat trick in the U-17 match.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Playing national under-age football doesn't generally automatically confer notability, especially U-17. Many U-17s will disappear off the map. U-21s perhaps, but by that age players are generally playing League football at least semi-regularly. --Ged UK (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Representation at national level in youth competition is not notability - even if he scores hat-tricks. He needs to play in a proper notable match, at least once. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable youth player. No substantial coverage other than in local paper. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is substantial coverage in El Mundo and EFE—it's not just passing mentions—and those are not local papers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea how substantial the coverage in either of those two references is, as I cannot see them. The EFE one at least mentions him by name in the headline, so may be substantial, but the El Mundo may be just a throwaway mention of his name for all I know. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you do not look up the articles yourself, then I suppose it comes down to whether you trust me when I tell you that the articles discuss Pacheco in sufficient depth. I've brought up the El Mundo article from my library's database again. It would have helped if I had provided the entire headline, which I had truncated because it was so long. Here it is: "Un madridista 'robado' al Barcelona: Dani Pacheco, Malagueño, 17 años, debuta con el Liverpool «Hemos empezado a ver su talento», dice Benitez «Es un sueño», afirma el". The article is about how a talent scout system in England is poaching Spanish youth players away from their home country, with Pacheco being discussed as the prime example (others are listed, but his is the only story actually laid out). The story is about 1000 words, six paragraphs. Paragraphs two through six of the story discuss Pacheco. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, he will fail Athlete at the moment, the question should be does he pass Notability, which is a more important criterion. --Ged UK (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Having failed WP:Athlete. I am concerned about those citations, the article has too many citations, and you can not cross verify them in the current format they are in. As only two lead off to the web. The citations don't link to the actual websites of those media companies and haven't used the web articles, which is normally duplicated on the web for local media. In many ways the citations have WP:Bio fails. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can verify non-Internet citations. It might involve a trip to a library. (Sorry if that sounds a bit snarky, but I was not sure how else to put it.) "The sources are not available on the web" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Please clarify if I have misunderstood what you are saying. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:N suggesting sufficient sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are sources but none of them indicate that he has done anything notable enough to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. If/when he plays for the first team at a professional club he should get an article, creating one now is just crystal balling that he is going to have a successful career as a footballer. King of the North East 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are confusing Notability with Fame and importance. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not, I could find hundreds of external links for a Romeo Beckham or David Banda article because loads of journalists have nothing better to do that write about the children of the famous, just as loads of sports journalists have nothing better to do than write about a footballer that has never even played a fully competitive game. He clearly fails to meet the notability criteia expected of sportsmen, and to keep him for the existence of some sources means that if he fails to play at professional level we will be stuck with an article about a footballer that never even played football. King of the North East 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasively put. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not a content criterion. The Core content policies are Verifiability, Neutral Point-of-View, and No Original Research. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do overlay these with commonsense, for example, precluding articles on the infant children of monarchs or prime ministers, about whom reams of material are written in RS. This is another example - lots of coverage of non notable competition. Much like my local paper prints masses about 12 year old swimmers who do well in the national trials for their age. They're not notable. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense, yes. Importance, no. If there are enough reliable sources to write a verifiable, NPOV article, then it is valid for inclusion. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per full agreement with User:King of the North East's comments just above regarding beck's babes and not yet made it footballers. Couldn't have put it better... recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Plenty of sources - YES, for doing anything notable? NO - not yet anyway - wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of sources=notable. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would actually say "presumption of notability", that is a little bit different. As someone stated above, Romeo Beckham and David Banda have plenty of sources, but I doubt they can actually be defined "notable subjects". --Angelo (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, meeting one or more criteria of WP:N presumes notability. Actually being noted in plenty of sources is notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N says clearly: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". And also: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability". What you say is not part of WP:N and is just your own personal opinion and interpretation. --Angelo (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, WP:N is a guideline to interpret the WP:Core content policies. If the subject of the article meets WP:N, we may presume that it is notable enough that a V, NPOV, NOR article may be written. It has nothing to do with importance; importance is POV. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:Core content policies looks to be more an essay than policy itself. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The core content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, the article that defines them as "core content policies" is an essay. And even if it would be policy, I could always say journalists writing article where they define this subject as "perspective future champion" are failing WP:V (how to verify this? Let's just wait and see?) and WP:NPOV (not a neutral point of view, for sure, since that is the journalist's own opinion). So, how about reliability of sources? You should get in to evaluate these sources rather than using their number as a measure, no matter where they come from (I've read of a load of nonsense articles with mistakes also coming from BBC, and I don't even want to talk about The Sun, Daily Mirror, AS.com and Marca - since I can read Spanish as well). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources do not cover the subject in detail, but just marginally refer to him as a "future perspective", that is against WP:CRYSTAL and the spirit of Wikipedia. --Angelo (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we seem to have developed a cut off point whereby a player needs a match in a fully professional, or national top-level, league to be on Wikipedia. This works, prevents spurious articles about every Premiership reserve player and should be supported. If he's good enough he'll have an article soon. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's a footballer who has never played a match - recreate if/when he plays. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Never played a fully pro match. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:N with the numerous articles about him referenced in the article - and a quick search on Google News yields many, many more. That he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE is irrelevent; WP guidelines are quite clear, if one meets WP:N one doesn't need to meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:N clearly satisfied. For those who were unable to read the El Mundo article, I have located a copy of it on their web site and added the link to the reference. It is clearly a non-trivial reliable source reference, along with a number of the others, clearly meating WP:N. Failure to also meet WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Angelo has already quoted the relevant part of WP:N here - "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability". Although sources do exist, they do not establish his notability as he has actually acheived nothing of note (simply signing for a top club isn't enough here). He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play a first team match at a full professional level, and playing in youth internationals does not confer notability neither. Bettia (rawr!) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unconvinced by the sources, which by and large use speculation about what Pachuco might become rather than what he actually is. For example the Liverpool Daily Post ref says "As will continue to be said for the foreseeable future there is still a long, long way to go before Pacheco can make the step up from warm up games to the real thing". The El Mundo ref basically says that Liverpool have dozens of youth players from around Europe, several reserves are Spanish, Pachuco is one of the better ones. Most of the references for things other than birthdate etc. are about reserve matches. Reserve matches receive limited coverage in the local press, but rarely further afield, and to regard it as significant coverage is stretching it. The Liverpool Echo reports on Prescot Cables matches too, but that doesn't mean their players are notable. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in the article are enough to meet our general notability guideline. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keeping this article would open the floodgates to thousands of articles about footballers who have never played at a professional level. Every local newspaper in Britain has in depth coverage of non-league teams in their area. I could write articles about dozens of Whitehill Welfare, Edinburgh University and Spartans players on the basis of what is reported on at least one page of the Edinburgh Evening News six days a week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's amazing that WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN are attacked from one side by editors that claim WP:N should override them under any circumstances, (no matter whether the subject is a child that has never played a full game or a semi-pro/amateur footballer that actually earns his living as a postman) and from the other side that claim that these guidelines are far to lax and that it is a travesty that their beloved encyclopaedia hosts 20,000 odd biographies of professional footballers. King of the North East 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't! Bettia (rawr!) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not a content criterion. There must simply be sufficient reliable sources for a Verifiable, NPOV, No original research article. WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are tools to suggest whether there may be sufficient sources when they are not already present. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (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.