Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannick Dias Pupo

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, for now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannick Dias Pupo

Yannick Dias Pupo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

article recreated shortly after prod expired, someone wrote on the talk page "I feel like this article should remain. Technically, it doesn't meet notability requirements at this time. But he's received a kit number for a top Portuguese club and will make the final team. Then he will soon appear in a game and will be notable as soon as this happens. Given the imminent circumstances and the fact that a decent stub exists to answer any questions, I think it should probably remain. matt91486 16:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)" My understanding has always been, esp. in similar articles I have written, that technically not meeting notability requirements trumps potential of notability and when said notability is reached, the article can be recreated. I feel that should be held in this case. Otherwise, I should recreate the articles of mine that have been deleted and say they should stay because Yannick got to stay on potential of notability, so the same can be said for others.... Postcard Cathy 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Archive and move back into mainspace once notability established Guycalledryan 01:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete until actual evidence of notability is available. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MastCell ^Talk 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. This man is currently listed as a team member in Sporting Clube de Portugal. Here is his entry at the club's web site. It does say he has not played any games for them yet. If the convention is that you're not notable until you've played, then I'll go along with that. However, note that every other current player at that club is blue-linked. EdJohnston 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't played a match in a fully-professional league. Number 57 08:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:BIO does state that players who are recognised first team squad members (which he appears to be) at major clubs (which Sporting undoubtedly is) can have an article. Also, can anyone read enough Portuguese to work out if this, this, this, this and this qualify as reliable sources? If they do then he passes WP:N, which is the main decider of notability and therefore surely renders whether he's actually played or not irrelevant......? ChrisTheDude 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Players have been kept in the past on the basis of having a squad number at a club where the rest of the players have articles. On this basis, I think this article should be kept unless the player is released, in which case it should be deleted. Dave101→talk  10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a close call. The language at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability would allow players who have not yet played be notable if most other players at the same club have articles: Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Recently I was at another AfD where the decision was to *exclude* the new player in a similar situation. EdJohnston 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I understand what is said by "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles." but to be fair, what we have here is not an encyclopedic article, just a single sentence of 20+ words. Such limited content would be more appropriate on the club page perhaps, I feel, until such time as there is something more substantive about which to write, which will presumably come if and when he does make an appearance in a fully professional league. Consequently I lean to the side of delete. --Malcolmxl5 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hesitant Keep First, he was previously signed for Corinthians, one of the biggest clubs in Brazil. If he played for them, that in itself would clearly qualify him for an entry. Second, could the page not be edited to say that he has yet to play in a first team match? Third, if you check WP entries on him in other languages, you can see there are multiple entries, somewhat different to the English one - perhaps a linguist could improve this entry by looking at them? Finally, isn't it notable that he's signed for Sporting, even if he hasn't yet played a full professional match? --Greatest hits 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can't talk about soccer but I can talk about baseball. Let's say this was a guy that was signed to the Yankees or Red Sox in 2004. If the guy never played a game in his life, was the catcher in the bullpen and/or maybe only was a pinch hitter twice while signed, would you say he was notable enough to be on wiki simply because he was on the Yankees or Red Sox? I say no way. Notability is what you do, not who you are affiliated with. Postcard Cathy 06:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To continue the baseball/Red Sox analogy, it would be more accurate to say that this guy (who is, after all, only 19) is more like a hot prospect who has been added to the club's "expanded roster" ready for his big league debut, like someone like, say, George Kottaras, who has an article...... ChrisTheDude 07:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But being a hot prospect does not equal notability in my book. Which is why I prod'd him in the first place. Wait until he makes it. He may not make it. How many athletes had good prospects and failed to live up to the hype? If and when he makes it, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, the team's article can mention him. Cathy

I know nothing about baseball :) but Cathy's analogy strikes me as a fairly good one. Pupo appears to have played for Corinthians youth team and not for the first team. There are exceptions of course but, per WP:BIO, we do not have articles on players who have never made an appearance in a fully professional league. This chap has not yet done so and given the brevity of his article, it seems clear that he is not otherwise notable and thus not an exception to the rule. --Malcolmxl5 09:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete crystal ball, non-notable player with no proven professional appearance with Sporting's first team. --Angelo 21:38, 11 August 2007 (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.