Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Díaz (Chilean footballer)

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. While on a simple nose count this would seem a "no consensus", none of the "Keep" arguments addressed the assertion that this article fails the GNG. With such an assertion, passing "NFOOTY" is not a relevant argument, and so is discounted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Díaz (Chilean footballer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has been tagged for notability issues for 9 years, and was last edited in 2020 with little to no changes since. I cannot find evidence of notability for this football player even on Google. ES Wikipedia is a stub as well, with no sourced information to copy over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a player of the Primera División (the main professional football league in Chile) I think they merit inclusion. I do concur with the thoughts about lack of references, though. ~~I was not able to find any.~~ Díaz seems to be a very obscure player, mostly known as Luis Eugenio Díaz (I suggest renaming the article). I found an article published by the Universidad Católica club which says he scored in a match between that club and Colo Colo, in 1997. That confirms they were in the Primera División and their article should be kept [1] However substantial effort may need to be undertaken in order to improve this article. Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Sports SNGs say the subject needs to meet GNG. We do not have enough sources here to meet GNG, so we are obliged to delete the article. Wikipedia is not sportspedia, and we do not keep articles just to make sure we have full roster lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sources do exist. It's just that it's kind of difficult to find them since they are offline. --Bedivere (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG by a long shot, regardless of meeting NFOOTY per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 172 senior appearances in pro leagues, and a 10+ year career, this AFD is ridiculous.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage provided or identifiable; fails GNG. Further, the article is currently a database entry - due to the only source being a database - so it violates WP:NOTDATABASE and thus needs to be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundred+ professional caps over many years? Easily meets NSPORTS. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any online coverage (Spanish language or otherwise) that meets WP:GNG. The article is created entirely based on the BDFA.com.ar database entry (and the couple of sentences Bedivere found above: "Luis Díaz estuvo hasta 1999 en la UC, pasó por varios clubes pequeños, el 2002 llegó a Colo Colo pero no se consolidó. Se retiró el 2007 en Puerto Montt."). While WP:NFOOTBALL creates a presumption of notability for this type of article, there are simply insufficient sources available to write the article unless someone has access to offline sources that could support it. Since Díaz played during the internet-era, I'm already skeptical that the offline sources are going to being much more robust than the nearly non-existent online sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY as others have pointed out, likely to have offline and/or non-English sources. NemesisAT (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with over 172 caps in pro leagues and a 10 year plus career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTY (the low bar that it is). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Per WP:NSPORTS, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. NFOOTY is a low bar, but fortunately that issue is partially addressed by the fact that they are still required to meet GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find that quote on WP:NSPORTS NemesisAT (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAQ #2. Although, I thought you were already aware, as you were discussing it with Random Canadian here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. That's a pretty ridiculous FAQ though given it is inconsistent with the guideline itself and with WP:N. It was written in 2013 so got to quesiton whether it still acurately summarises the guideline (both on its own and in relation to WP:N). Personally, I prefer to follow what is written at WP:N, where it clearly states passing either an SNG or GNG is sufficient for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but if you believe that consensus has changed since 2013 I would suggest opening an RFC to change it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article in its current state doesn't have much, but can be further expanded with text from Spanish Wikipedia and other languages. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Wikipedia article is also a basic stub. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 22 February 2022 (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.