Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saidy Janko
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 28 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 19:51, 28 January 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saidy Janko[edit]
- Saidy Janko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD and PROD-2. Janko had some press coverage recently, but so have many other players during the summer transfer window and it's not a reason for this article to be kept in my opinion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he's never played first-team football at senior level. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 22:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, standard non-notable youth footballer. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – As the original prodder, I stand by my view that Mr Janko's article fails both WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTY. He has not received significant media coverage & the coverage he has received is based around his transfer which is considered no more than routine. He has also never played first team football for a fully professional side or played at senior international level. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Ridiculous that this has even been nominated for AFD. This player's existence has been proven and sourced with links. Also noted that he plays for Manchester United, arguably the biggest football club in the world. Once again, I stress - KEEP FreelanceMOD (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The player's existence is not what is being debated here, we all know he exists. For a player to have an article on Wikipedia they must pass either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Neither of which he passes as he has never played first team football or received significant media coverage and coverage he did receive was all based around his transfer. The fact that he plays for a high profile club such as Manchester United bears no relevance when he fails both guidelines. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen many pages for youth players from various teams (and teams considerably weaker than Manchester United). It's beginning to look like there is an anti-Manchester United agenda creeping in here. I stress again to KEEP this article. FreelanceMOD (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter which club Janko plays for. The fact is he has never played senior first-team football, so fails notability. When he makes his Manchester United first-team debut, this article can be reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither Guillermo Varela or Marouane Fellaini have played a game for Manchester United, and I don't see people AFDing their wiki pages, so what exactly is going on here? FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple, Fellaini played first-team football for Everton and Belgium, while Varela played first-team football for his last club Peñarol, which makes them both notable. JMHamo (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FreelanceMOD as JMHamo has said if/when he makes his debut the article can be restored with a click of a button. Please read other stuff exists as it is not a valid point to compare it to other similar articles across the project as a reason to keep. Both Fellani & Varela pass WP:NFOOTBALL as JMHamo has already explained. There is no anti Manchester United agenda here the only reason it is at AfD as it fails both general & specific guidelines. So please keep your accusations to yourself as future ones may get you blocked. If you have concerns over other football articles your welcome to PROD them yourself once you've read both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL or you can send me a list on my talk page. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And Janko was previously at FC Zurich, what's your point? I reiterate my KEEP vote. FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide a reliable source for his appearances in the FC Zurich first-team... I can't find any. JMHamo (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So I try to engage in a debate to keep a page of a Manchester United footballer and I'm being threatened with "block" warnings. Completely ridiculous. It seems this page is doomed either way, so why bother even having a debate when its fate is already sealed. Or is the agenda here to AFD a Manchester United player's page, wait for people to arrive and state KEEP, then get them blocked? And then to say there is no anti-Manchester United agenda at work here? Jesus Christ. I'm done here. Adios FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.