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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Maleck[edit]

Joao Maleck (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)

Fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't played a professional game yet. Fram (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Fram. This guy will probably have an article in due course, but probably not in the next year or so. We can wait. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am not disputing the fact that the subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY or the fact that this article probably is WP:TOOSOON and will probably be significantly expanded in the future. However after some quick searches on Bing and Google I believe that the subject of the article does have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. See here {1, 2, 3, 4) for entire webpage articles that are focused solely about him. This is certainly not your average routine coverage of a footballer and in my opinon definitely passes the WP:GNG requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - as per Inter's arguments Spiderone 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - see Inters points. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above fails NFOOTY, and in my opinion also fails GNG. Having a few articles in a local paper on a kid that is a 'promising footballer' is not a claim to notability. The lad has not done or aceived anything notable. Local journos looking for copy will pounce on any handy hopeful and write an article, but WP is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not a mirror of local newspaper articles. Maybe the lad will one day do something notable, but right now it is TOOSOON ClubOranje^T 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should not be about whether any policy 'trumps' any other policy, it should be about whether he is 'notable' by Wikipedia standards. Has the subject acheived anything noteworthy, or has he just had a couple of human interest articles in local papers - and even if it is in wider media, is it there because it is 'notable' or is it still just a page filler for a bit of local interest. Too many people seem to think having an article in a paper qualifies as GNG; I've seen plenty of people in the papers and they are not notable by Wikipedia standards - including a homeless guy who made local headlines which were picked up by all the papers because he set up camp at a secluded local beach and lived naked. Not notable; just human interest story. ClubOranje^T 20:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I highly agree with you ClubOranje that there really is no substitute or trump policy for WP:GNG, but I'm afraid that's where are views diverge. The subject of the article in question (Joao Maleck) are more than just human interest stories in local newspapers. This article on Maleck is by ESPN Deportes, are they a "local paper"? A quick search shows that Maleck has been subject to a wide range of coverage spanning from 2016 to 2017, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here either in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2017 (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.