Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius

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. L Faraone 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Klimavičius

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

While technically meeting WP:NSPORT, his only claim to notability under that guideline was a single appearance over five years ago which does not appear to have generated significant coverage. The article so clearly fails WP:GNG that, in my opinion, it falls under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet its criteria must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on the web, no publications, therefore fails GNG and as a minor league player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, amongst others. Giant Snowman 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree with the principle, I find it hard to vote for deletion in this case given that we don't have a Lithuanian-speaker to confirm that the footballer in question hasn't received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), after I searched for Norwegian sources and realized that there wasn't possible to find enough sources to make the subject pass GNG. In this case there are no-one that has actually searched for sources in Lithuanian, and in a lot of the other examples there are footballers that have played one match in a domestic league before fading into obscurity - this footballer was an expatriate footballer and played one match for one of the best team in one of Europe's 10 best leagues, but he has continued to play football in the top-flight in Lithuania after he returned home. I don't want to join a trend where we delete every short stubs about footballers that has played only one match and is from a country which we don't understand the language of, and then claim that it fails WP:GNG. For instance, what does this news-article tell us and does it leads us any closer to passing GNG? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – while I am sympathetic towards Mentoz86's point, I feel meeting GNG needs to be demonstrated. The "we don't know" status would, in my opinion, mean the article should be deleted, as it is not clear that there is sufficient notability, with no prejudice against future recreation if notability can be established further on down the line. C 679 17:06, 8 December 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.