Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Seixas

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Hugo Seixas}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugo_Seixas Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Hugo Seixas}})

:({{Find sources AFD|Hugo Seixas|site:ojogo.pt}})

:({{Find sources AFD|Hugo Seixas|site:abola.pt}})

:({{Find sources AFD|Hugo Seixas|site:record.pt}})

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, a check on google sees that their is no results for this player which might be a good case for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - if it passes NFOOTY, a lack of Ghits isn't a reason to delete it. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Question On what basis does he pass WP:NFOOTY? His team plays in the Aveiro Football Association, which is labelled a "lower-tier league" in its own article and is not listed on the list of fully professional leagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor3000 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

:Comment {{re|Skeletor3000}} He did pass WP:NFOOTY because his team S.C. Beira-Mar was in the top division in 2010-11 where he played 19 minutes for the Portugese club. HawkAussie (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG which is far more important than technically passing NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of search result from portuguese sport newspapers fail the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - All of the online English- and Portuguese-language coverage is routine (e.g., database entries and match reports), and given a comprehensive failure of the GNG, NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability arising from a few minutes of play in the Portuguese Liga doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFOOTY only creates the presumption of notability, and he only barely qualifies for it anyway (with 19 min of total play time in fully pro league). If he doesn't pass the GNG based on sources that we can find (he doesn't appear to), then the presumption is wrong. That's fine, NFOOTY is meant to make our job easier by giving us a rule of thumb, but the presumption isn't always right (especially when the subjects only pass on a technicality). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Thanks {{re|HawkAussie}} for that clarification. I'm in agreement with others here regarding 19 minutes being insufficient reason to consider him notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG, even though that he passes WP:NFOOTY, 19 minutes is really not much to keep this article from deletion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per rationale provided by nom, {{ping|Nnadigoodluck}} & {{ping|Skeletor3000}} , Furthermore the encyclopedia isn’t a WP:CRYSTALBALL & we can only work with reliable references if they aren’t in existence yet then subject of article isn’t yet notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete With only a handful of minutes on the field, this hardly meets Wikipedia:Notability as notability is assumed.castorbailey (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.