Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Alberto Souza dos Santos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn otherwise speedy keep. As often noted below, notability does not have an expiry date - Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Alberto Souza dos Santos

Carlos Alberto Souza dos Santos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Retired non-notable professional soccer player. Given his retired athlete status this article is not protected by WP:ATHLETE because from the moment of his retirement his no longer an athlete or a competitor.

Therefore this article must comply with the more general WP:BIO criteria but it fails at that. Delete per WP:BIO ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The nominator's rationale is wrong, notability does not expire. But I won't say keep unless I see some references added to the article. Punkmorten (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Portuguese version of the article seems to have some references here, not sure how good they are. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as professional footballers are (even by the nominator) undisputably notable, and because (as noted by Punkmorten) notability doesn't expire. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notability is not temporary, Portuguese version of article is more substantial and better referenced so expansion is clearly possible. - Dravecky (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league. Has the subject done that? Yes, thus he satisfies the notability criterion. Notability is not temporary and articles are not removed just because the subject is no longer involved in what made them notable. WilliamH (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The Brazilian Project has over 2,000 articles related to soccer players, the English Project over 6,000. Most these articles are stub with no information about players nobody hears about worse as English peasant points out that the WP:ATHLETE guideline was invented, it was not a product of careful debate.
By creating the concept of retired athletes we could please both NFL, FA Cup, NBA and Copa do Brasil fans and still satisfy WP:BIO in the long term.
WP:ATHLETE is a crazy, invented, STUB creating guideline that only serves to satisfy sports fans and is in full contradiction of WP:BIO.
Don't believe me? Check [Category:Brazilian_footballers], most of the articles were created for new players, the articles are stubs, have no information only player transfers and the players are not notable per WP:BIO.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever the criteria for athletes are or should be, they should apply equally to active players and to those retired (to the extent doing so is meaningful). I don't think we need separate criteria for retired athletes to distinguish them from active athletes. If some editors want to make the criteria more restrictive, then that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as to Santos himself, because apparently he played about 9 years in the J. League, Japan's highest professional soccer league. I doubt we would ever impose criteria so restrictive as to exclude someone who played 9 years in a country's top-level professional league. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
So what the guy played 9 years? No reliable sources have ever writtten something about that player, so under the WP:BIO criteria he has no notability. WP:ATHLETE is the only thing keeping this STUB article up, even though he is no longer an athlete.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it implausible that "no reliable sources" have ever written about Santos. It seems more likely that such sources exist, but most of them are in Japanese and thus inaccessible to me, and that many of the non-Japanese sources are in Portuguese rather than English. I disagree with your implication that retired athletes cannot or should not qualify under WP:ATHLETE. The guideline refers to "[c]ompetitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league ...." The use of the words "have competed" includes both active and retired athletes. No reason has been given as to why we ought to impose a different standard for retired players compared to active players -- just that he is not an athlete anymore. But this encyclopedia is supposed to include historical information, not just a record of people who are active in their careers right now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Retired notable players remain notable in all sports, just as people do in other subjects once they have been notable. DGG (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This was not trying to create the concept of temporary notability', this was trying to create a compromise between the overly protective and loose WP:ATHLETE and the more restrictive WP:BIO, but nobody liked it. So that unsourcced stub article will remain.
I withdraw the nomination.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notability is not an important policy, and here it has been mis-interpreted by the nominator. We do not delete articles just because they are stubs. Catchpole (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"notability is not an important policy"??!! This was great.
BTW I conceded and withdrew the nomination.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
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.