Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pham Van Nam

: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. Keeper | 76 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Pham Van Nam]]=

:{{la|Pham Van Nam}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pham_Van_Nam Stats])

:({{Find sources|Pham Van Nam}})

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This article appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete. No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league. [http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/Documents/common/cms/afc/FINAL%20ASSESSMENT%20CHART%201.pdf The source] determining whether it is an FPL provides a 404 error (what a shock - the FPL list fails again!), so would appear that the two users above have not bothered to check this. This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either. Fenix down (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:*Woah woah woah, stop right there and AGF at once. You have got so much wrong/twisted in your comment I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a go - "No indication in the articles that players fulfill GNG however, also no indication that they have not played in a fully professional league" - the WP:BURDEN is on those claiming notability, and they have to verify the claim. That has not been done and I don't think it can be done. The Soccerway profile shows 0 appearances in any league, let alone a fully-professional one. "so would appear that the two users above have not bothered to check this" - based on what?! No, you completely right, after 7 years of editing I have no idea about the existence of WP:BEFORE, no idea whatsoever "This therefore also calls into question their unsupported statements that the players fail GNG as one would assume they haven't checked this either" - this article began was initally tagged as an unreferenced BLPPROD, I couldn't find any sources and even the article creator's attempts to improve the article has found minimal. You are incredibly ignorant of WP:AGF, WP:BURDEN, WP:V etc. and I find your attitude here entirely inappropriate. Giant Snowman 12:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

::You're quite right, I did not check the soccerway page, there is no evidence readily available that he has even played. I retract my comments with apologies. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2013 (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.