Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis José de Lima

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. BD2412 T 03:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis José de Lima

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, not a notable footballer LeftiePete (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTY due to several appearances in different professional leagues in Brazil; news coverage is limited but here is one source that could be used [1] Spiderone 22:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SKCRIT 2 or 3 - I have serious concerns about the conduct of the nominator and the nomination is clearly erroneous that I don't believe the nominator has even read the article, let alone undertaken WP:BEFORE. There are references in the article and they clearly show that this player is notable per WP:NFOOTBALL (reason) - the article simply needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This footballer is not a notable football player. A quick Google search confirms this statement. He’s hardly referenced anywhere. Finding one or two sources is clutching at straws.--LeftiePete (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Maybe he passes NFOOTY, but so what? As written, he doesn't pass GNG. Improve it to several paragraphs then restore. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't begin to promote WP:NFOOTY because I don't agree with it or its determining factors, but my belief is that this player deserves this article. He has enough sources that I have found by doing a WP:BEFORE that add up to the spirit of WP:GNG and Wikipedia itself, in my opinion. (Of note: I believe the countless women footballers who have been deleted deserve an article, as well.) The AfD process is not for clean-up of articles so I believe it should be kept. I also concur with GiantSnowman's concern about the conduct of the nominator. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to lacking the sourcing to pass WP:GNG. I'm with Piotrus. Maybe passes WP:NFOOTY, but this is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and therefore the article should contain more then just his name, what team he plays for, and an infobox. There's zero reason the article can't be drafted and recreated when that extremely extremely low bar has been met. Also, while I agree the nominator has maybe made a few bad nominations, it doesn't mean they were in bad faith or that every nomination should be discounted off because of it. Even if they were in bad faith though, a lot of AfDs still go through the process when they were created by suckpuppets and the like. So, there's zero reason not to consider this on it's merits as an while it's here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a decent amount of information in Portuguese. I've added a source which talks directly about him and didn't have time to parse the other results - lots of players named Élvis it seems, but a full name search + the name of the clubs he's been involved with brings up a number of results which likely get him past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: There's so much information about him that this article is on the second page when you search his name on Google (sarcasm). And, no there aren't too many players named Élvis but that's beside the point - let's just discuss the alleged notability of Elvis José de Lima. Google news brings up no results. Google search results only show what teams he's played for in the past. Why is that enough for him to have a Wikipedia article?--LeftiePete (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking in the right place, then. I've run several searches specifically targeted in Portuguese and have found good coverage of him. Notability isn't based on where someone falls in Google results, especially footballers who share a name with a celebrity who receive all of their coverage in a foreign language. I've added an additional reference and updated the article a bit, but there's a lot more to add. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article about professional footballer who made a handful of substitute's appearances in the 2006 Brasileiro A, before embarking on a journeyman's career with a fair amount of appearances in Brasileiro B and C, Pernambucano A and Paulista A1. There is plenty of online routine coverage in Portuguese, but not much that could be considered in-depth coverage (e.g., there is as much coverage of his daughter's birth as there is of his playing career in one of the sources). It is challenging finding online coverage of a person with a common nickname (e.g., Santa Cruz also had a defender named Elvis shortly before this one broke into the senior side). Jogurney (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2020 (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.