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 KEEP. I am swayed by DGG's argument, at the top of the WP:NFOOTY page is:- The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Since it is at the top of the guideline in bold, we must conclude that this is the most important point on the entire page. It calls for either GNG or NSPORT to be met. GNG has a similar clause:- A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. The argument that GNG supercedes the requirements of NSPORT, while this may be a valid and popular viewpoint, has no basis in current policy. Spinning Spark 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinie Fitri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Subject just about passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played one match in a fully professional league but is essentially non notable as a lack of substantial third party sources means he fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, and is young enough that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt re:WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand why you would give the benefit of the doubt. Surely there are the level and quality of sources required by GNG or not? If this was someone who had played 5 or 6 games per season over the last few years, I could understand, sort of. But this is a guy who has played part of one game. I have no idea how you can assert notability on the basis of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 appearance does not confer notability. Even though that is the wording of WP:NFOOTY, there are plenty of cases in the last year where articles about footballers has been deleted despite passing NFOOTY, because of the failure of WP:GNG. This footballer fails GNG, and that is the most important notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual interpretation of the guidelines seems to be that footballers playing in the mostly professional English and Scottish leagues get a free pass but that these uppity foreigners need to have conclusive proof that they get through the general notability guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive of general practice rather than prescriptive, so isn't it time that we enshrined that principle in WP:NFOOTY? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet GNG. However, agree that NFOOTY needs changing. Eldumpo (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is not the appropriate guideline. NFOOTY is. The proper role of the gng is a supplementary way of showing notability for those who did not play in a professional game, but are notable because of press coverage. If anyone really want to base everything on the gng, the assumption would be that another article could be found if we could look exhaustively in print sources. {personally, I understand those saying that 1 appearance isn't enough, and perhaps it isn't in any real sense, but it does provide a convenient and reproducible criterion that ought to avoid argument. Having such a criterion and following it is more important than debating over a few borderline articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 16 March 2013 (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.