Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerson Gomes de Moura

: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, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

=[[Emerson Gomes de Moura]]=

:{{la|Emerson Gomes de Moura}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emerson_Gomes_de_Moura Stats])

:({{Find sources|Emerson Gomes de Moura}})

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL, only fully pro league in brazil is the primero division which this player hasn't appeared in.Seasider91 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - the top level of the Pernambuco state league is fully-pro, and there is plenty enough coverage of Memo to pass the GNG (in Portuguese-language sources). He was picked for the league's 2012 "all-star" selection, won the league twice and is on the verge of a move to Sao Paulo side Portuguesa. The article needs to be fleshed out (I started), but deletion is not necessary. Jogurney (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - A quick search of Globoesporte's website, shows a significant amount of [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:globoesporte.globo.com+memo&oq=site:globoesporte.globo.com+memo&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...562.562.0.1139.1.1.0.0.0.0.94.94.1.1.0...0.0.7Xo0Pj_4stQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=623fba03f124916d&biw=1600&bih=671 articles] dedicated to memo's exploits with Santa Cruz. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - After Jogurney's changes, the article has improved, but It's still a stub, and in my opinion an article should show that the subject passes WP:GNG, but this one doesn't. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - several editors have said this article fails NFOOTBALL, but I don't think that's accurate. Most of the top divisions of the Brazilian state leagues are fully-pro (certainly the Carioca and Paulista leagues) and the Pernambucano is also fully-pro (clubs like Sport and Náutico are playing in the Série A). Brazilian football experts have previously indicated that these top divisions of the state leagues are fully-pro, so I wonder why editors are claiming this article fails NFOOTBALL. (By the way, I agree that the GNG is more important than NFOOTBALL, but as it stands the article is GNG-compliant - or very close - and with a little time and research, it can be more than a stub.) Jogurney (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - I remembered that the Copa do Brasil is accepted as fully-pro without controversy, and added a reference showing Memo played (and scored a goal) in the 2012 version. The article certainly passes NFOOTBALL, so hopefully the editors who relied on it failing NFOOTBALL will reconsider. Jogurney (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am confident in Jogurney's claim that this meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and am positive it can be brought up to WP:GNG in due course. GiantSnowman 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Having looked at the wikiproject Football's list of fully professional leagues I'am convinced also that Jogurneys claim that this article passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Therefore I shall change my decsion to keepSeasider91 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:FPL doesn't list the Pernambuco league or the Copa do Brasil as 'fully pro'. Is there any evidence they are? Eldumpo (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Pernambucano [http://www.fpf-pe.com.br/pdfs/reg_a1_2012.pdf regulations] claim it is professional (it's in Portuguese). Maybe we can get a Brazilian editor to confirm? Jogurney (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the regs clearly have some references to the equivalent of 'professional' but someone will need to demonstrate that it actually says it's 'fully pro'. Eldumpo (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to the Campeonato Pernambucano regulations, the Campeonato Pernambucano is a professional competition, and as Pernambuco is an important state of Brazil, it is certain that the Campeonato Pernambucano is fully professional, so the article passes WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you able to confirm in English what the regs state regarding the 'fully pro' status of the league, and can you indicate the particular paragraph. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2012 (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.