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 all. The various special notability guidelines, NFOOTY included, live in tension with our general notability guideline. When the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines give different results, the community tends to weight one or the other differently depending on which subject notability guideline we are considering, but both are pretty much always in play in various degree.

In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the League from the FPL, I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know.

I'm left with the view that any argument based on NFOOTY here is pretty weak, and I have weighted NFOOTY arguments in general here quite weakly. In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.

In short, GNG arguments get most of the weight here. And we have unanimous consensus below that the players do not meet GNG.

DangerousPanda's June 1 close, mentioned below, deserves mention. I believe that it was a wise, patient close, with a prejudice toward retaining material and a Gentle Mallet of Clue suggesting that an RfC was needed on the League's status. To the best of my knowledge, discussion has completely halted on that question, no RfC has been created, the last discussion at WT:NPERSON was in April, and AFAIK no attempts have been made to pursue this through AZ-speaking editors and so on. It is now a different time, and what made sense then does not necessarily make sense today. Patience is different than acceptance that we will leave this question unanswered indefinitely.

In summary, NFOOTY's result is "answer hazy", and no amount of voting in this AfD will really get to the bottom of the ambiguity. Until that ambiguity is resolved, I believe that GNG is the only meaningful policy-based measure of the notability of players from this League. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlan Guliyev[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This player seems to be the "victim" of discussion surrounding the professional standing of an entire league. When the article was created, it appears that consensus was that the league WAS professional. There still does not appear to be consensus that the league is NOT professional - include links provided below that show that it is. The issue surrounding the league should be resolved through RFC once-and-for-all before additional nominations on any of the players or teams in that league as stated in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samir_Masimov_(2nd_nomination) --Yacatisma (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yacatisma.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY as plays in fully professional league as per [1]. Nicat49 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence in reliable sources that the Azeri league is fully-pro, so they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore there is no evidence of significant coverage, so we also have a WP:GNG failure. Giant Snowman 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY.--Janavar (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Keep votes above all make the fundamental error in assuming that the league is considered FULLY professional. The links provided above do not indicate this in any way. This merely shows they are part of an organisation of professional leagues, but does not show that all clubs playing the league MUST be fully professional. This discussion was held and the consensus is that this league is not fully professional. As such, no players in this league who have not either played in a fully professional league elsewhere or played senior international football pass WP:NFOOTY and are therefore reliant on GNG for notability. There is no indication of any significant non-routine coverage for any achievements associated with these players. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in fully professional league, that was listed at WP:FPL when it was removed without consensus and without any evidence that the league isn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2014 (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.