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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thibault Corbaz[edit]

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

This was deleted as a PROD but was contested and restored. Per this Corbaz has played all his senior games in the Swiss Challenge League which, according to WP:FPL is not a fully professional league. Corbaz's sole appearance in Switzerland's national cup, the Schweizer Pokal, was against FC Winterthur in the 2015–2016 season. FC Winterthur was playing in the Swiss Challenge League that season. Corbaz has not played a game for the senior Switzerland national team. All this shows that Corbaz does not meet WP:NFOOTY. This google search shows there is not enough in-depth, reliable sourcing focusing on Corbaz to mean he meets WP:GNG. – Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profile season 2016/17 on the Swiss Football League homepage surely meets WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources). I do not understand why the Swiss Challenge League is not included in the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football, all the clubs are professional. Is it just because a few teams (FC Chiasso, FC Le Mont, FC Wohlen) often field semi-pro players (???) If a club makes a loss it has it's licence revoked (example FC Biel-Bienne January 2016). It is difficult enough trying to write on swiss football, without having well writen artikels being suggested for deletion. Okay, the english press do ignore swiss football, even the fact that FC Basel became champions last season was ignored by the entire press. It would be great if editors would help improve swiss coverage, please don't delete, this makes everything even more difficult. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly regarding the source you linked to. That is what we call a routine source which means it doesn't help the person pass WP:GNG. The page, although it is about him, doesn't discus him or analyse him as Footballer. It is just a list of stats which any player in the Swiss leagues would have. Secondly, by a fully professional league, we mean that all the clubs are professional, i.e. all their players don't have a second job, the players get paid a wage that is sustainable etc.. Thirdly, per WP:HARDWORK, just because you (or others) have put time into the article, and it is greatly appreciated, it doesn't mean we should keep the article. if the subject has no notability then it should be deleted because if everything had an article Wikipedia would become less of an encyclopaedia and more of a social network. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At the time this article was created, the Swiss Challenge League was, and had been for several years, listed at WP:FPL as fully professional. It was removed from the FPL list, not because it was proven to be non-fully pro, but because the epfl-europeanleagues.com source used didn't guarantee fully professional status. (Still better than the crappy "source" that proves the Swiss Super League fully pro, but that's by the by.) I'm not sure how good an idea it is to start deleting articles that were created in compliance with the notability criteria as they stood at the time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what your getting at but I don't see why what the old notability standard was matters now. Just because we would of kept the article two years ago doesn't mean we should now. Also see WP:LONGTIME. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why not... I've expanded it a bit, with reference to mostly routine sources but two or three significant ones: refs #3 and #27, and to some extent #23 are more than routine, although #3 is a local paper. I'd have done a fair bit better with him had the Swiss papers not all been hidden behind paywalls; it's frustrating when you get lots of promising-looking search results and they're all subscription only :-) If it isn't kept, at least there'll be a half decent base for someone to work from when Mr Corbaz does have his 15 minutes of fame in a fully pro league. And I do advise someone to try and find a credible source for the Swiss Super League being fully pro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the claims here that the article is still not actually exhibiting how and where he's independently notable; the fact his career information is not exhibiting this, shows there's nothing convincing therefore. SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough credible and notable sources to pass WP:GNG as Struway2 has previously noted. --Jimbo^[online] 13:46, 20 September 2016 (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.