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.
I think Notable
Been often linked to many of the best teams, playing for the Brazil youth teams. He will obviously be a star so why delete the article and have to re-do it in the future, pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamietullett (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
"He will obviously be a star" is WP:CRYSTAL. A few years ago a guy called Jamie Richards was linked to a whole host of top clubs, including Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, and he received the same sort of tabloid coverage. Should he get an article based on that? Of course not. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable I would argue that he passes WP:GNG due to extent of coverage in mainstream press in UK, Brazil and elsewhere. WP:Footy expressly allows youth players that meet wider WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE coverage like this doesn't make someone notable. What is achieved in their youth doesn't make them notable and neither does being compared to someone else by journalists who has actually played at a fully professional level. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are non-routine examples too:[1],[2],[3]. Being called "one of Brazil's best young footballers" in a national broadsheet is surely notable? Deserter1 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the sources used in the article are ROUTINE, but the sources shown by Deserter1 are significant and reliable which allows this article to pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definitely needs improving, but the player does pass WP:GNG per Deserter's sources. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources raised by Deserter1, player passes WP:GNG. doomgaze(talk) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of GNG, multiple reliable sources say he's one of the best prospects in Brazil. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to everybody saying the article meets GNG - there are only two references in the article, both of which are routine sports coverage, about his transfer to Chelsea. How on earth does that merit the article meeting GNG?! GiantSnowman 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments related to the three references I suggested above, rather than those in the article. I have now incorporated these references in the article. The reason I didn't do this earlier was that the consensus at that stage appeared to be in favour of deletion. Deserter1 12:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the article, but it still doesn't meet GNG in my opinion - where is the "significant coverage"? GiantSnowman 22:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". A number of independent, reliable sources like BBC Sport, The Guardian, The Telegraph and others have written features article specifically on the player, with his name in the headline, not just noting a multi-million pound international transfer move and his awards at youth international level, but also discussing in some depth the motivations behind the purchase and the player's potential to become the first Brazilian striker to excel in one of the world's best leagues. I interpret this as significant rather than trivial or routine coverage. Deserter1 23:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the five references currently in the article, four of them are routine transfer news and/or profiles about young Brazilians as a whole. Only one (the BBC piece) counts as "signigicant coverage." GiantSnowman 12:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to clarify that despite the headline, The Telegraph article [4] is not actually about young Brazilian players in general; 90% of the 1000 word plus article focuses on Piazon. Deserter1 13:24, 11 July 2011 (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.
