Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Piazón (2nd nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Piazón

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

Player without games at senior level. who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is about a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL, BUT he is one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams. The quality on the article is also good, even though there is a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, my impression is that the article passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just promising. Will he ever live up to the promise and make his debut? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying he passes WP:GNG - are you saying that an article about a footballer have to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL to not be deleted? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am saying that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. You don't inherit notability from your employer. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mentoz - so he is notable because he is "one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams"? WP:POV, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but yes - I'm saying he is notable by passing GNG. But the coverage he have gotten is because he is "one of the most promising players on one of Europe's best football-teams". Mentoz86 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has multiple reliable sources, footballer is one of the best young prospects in England. In my view the article is well-written. Footballer is young and has been on the Chelsea bench a few times, certainly will start playing games at senior level. He has won the Chelsea Young player of the year and will be rewarded for this. The article passes in my view. Cyber17 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that he never ever has played a single game at senior level. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL but not WP:GNG, which is what matters. Player has received substantial non-routine coverage, not to mention a £5million+ transfer fee. I do feel that the the "Piazón is a Brazilian youth international. He is considered to be an up-and-coming talent with his potential, technical skill and creativity, drawing comparisons with Real Madrid and Brazil international playmaker Kaká." section in the introduction is inappropriate, however, particularly without a source. --Kafuffle (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This notion that he is notable due allegedly being one of the best young talents is clearly nonsense when you consider the wikipedia sense of the term notable. That being said, he has received signifcantly more coverage than even your average footballer who has played professionally, coverage which, in my opinion, is sufficient to meet the general notablity guideline. I may not like the fact that the media pay so much attention the youngsters of a select few clubs while effectively ignoring the rest, but I cannot also deny the fact that they do. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (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.