Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João Rodrigo Silva Santos

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

João Rodrigo Silva Santos

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

Non-notable footballer, who fails WP:GNG and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Minor footballer, his death has received a little bit of coverage purely because of its nature, but that is not notable either. Giant Snowman 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now shows to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this guy played for Östers IF, though I'm unable to verify whether he played any matches in Allsvenskan, a fully pro league, which would mean the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. I would suggest the nominator reads WP:RAPID, afterall this biography is about a breaking news event, and if this was nominated for deletion more than five hours after it was created, maybe we would have known if the subject was notable or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mentoz86: - Östers IF have only spent 1 season in the Allsvenskan recently (2006), do you have any idea if he was even signed with them in that season, let alone if he played? Basially here we have a potential claim to notability, but one which is unverifiable. How is that notable in any way, shape or form? "He may be notable but I can't prove it" - um okay then! Giant Snowman 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me rephrase that: this guy was contracted to Östers IF when the club played in Allsvenskan in 2003, but I'm unable to verify whether he actually played any matches in Allsvenskan. But I doubt that all of the Scandinavia media would call him "former Allsvenskan player" if he didn't play any matches in Allsvenskan. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But even if he has played in the Allsvenskan, has he received "significant coverage" in Brazil, Scandinavia, or eslewhere? Giant Snowman 17:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He played six matches and scored one goal for Öster in Allsvenskan in 2003, according to svenskfotboll.se -77.222.192.193 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - technical NFOOTY pass. Agree with GS, unlikely there is much significant coverage in footballing terms, but add what there is to his recent grisly murder and there is a case for GNG. Would be interested to see what additional sources can be provided and also prepared to change my view should there be little coverage on his death. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his death has already been reported in the Guardian. not enough on its own for GNG by any means, but if additional sources can be found to show his death received wider international coverage, added to his NFOOTY pass I would remain happy to keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of his professional appearances. Spiderone 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per NFOOTY but it's pretty tenuous. Maybe see how it looks in a month or so, perhaps it will satisfy GNG by then. It can always be reviewed later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 1 November 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.