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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Sardescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A 27-year-old (yes, he was actually born in 1981, and in English it's called Bucharest, by the way) who kicks around a ball well enough to be on a second-rate team. That's it. Yes, I'm sure some people will vote "Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE". But just because it passes a policy doesn't automatically mean we should be keeping this "article". There's just nothing on this guy - I checked - but roster lists and a couple of sentences saying he's not that good a player. I assure you, this isn't one of those "someone will come along later and improve the article" cases - what you see is more or less what you'll be getting (OK, maybe a template incorporating his history). Shouldn't we aspire to a higher standard than this? He's already listed here and that really should be enough as far as Sardescu's presence on Wikipedia is concerned. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but as you rightly point out, he passes WP:ATHLETE so he's notable enough for inclusion, period. So on what grounds should the article be deleted? The policy is there to provide a yardstick against which we measure articles, and he measures up. I don't care two hoots about him, and I'll probably never look at the article again after today, but that's not the point. I added cats and stub template to make a small start on improvement. Karenjc 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but it is indeed the point! And, might I add, there's more to be said after the "period". You see, WP:ATHLETE is a mere guideline. It does not supersede WP:N (itself a guideline) or WP:V (an official policy). Moreover, policy aside (ie, WP:IAR), why? Really, how does it enrich the encyclopedia to have hundreds and hundreds of articles stating that some guy plays football for some team? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" (emphasis mine). I can't find anything there, in WP:DEL#REASON, in WP:STUB or in my memory of precedent suggesting that an otherwise suitable stub should be deleted merely because it's unlikely to be expanded. If he's a suitable topic but there's not much to say about him, isn't it better to say that than nothing at all? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, WP:STUB says that a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". Implicitly, that means every article ought to have expansion potential. However, given the lack of sources on this individual (and - my second point - reliable independent sources are indeed lacking - almost every Google hit on him is a roster list), this stub cannot be expanded. Third, the relevant information that we say about him here - his playing for Progresul- is already here. Fourth: I assure you this isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I have no personal feelings on the man), but allow me to reiterate my philosophical objection to "X is a football player for Y" type articles. The fact is they reduce the encyclopedia's calibre. I thought brilliant prose, footnotes, scholarliness, in-depth coverage were all goals of ours. (Which is not to say all articles must be "serious" - see here for a good exception - but this one is both boring and trivial, a rather fatal combination in my view.) But guys like these have a habit of flooding the encyclopedia with permanent micro-stubs destined to remain in that state (I almost guarantee it) for good. So of course, according to policy, this "article" can exist. The question is should it and its growing number of counterparts continue to reside here? I submit, emphatically, no, better keep them on sports fansites. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've prod'ed three four of Prodigy.addicted's sub-stubs and expanded the two Brazilians to assert notability and move them up to stub class. If this article also gets deleted, they will be his only two contributions so hardly a flood of micro-stubs there. Jogurney (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he's addicted, he's bound to keep them coming, no? :) But yes, I was referring more to Jjmihai and Mario1987 (some of whose articles do have appreciable text, but many of which do not). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the link for Jjmihai's contributions. I have cleaned up over 100 of Mario1987's articles (resulting in dozens of deletions), and so it seems we have much more work to do with Jjmihai. Ugh. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. In the absence of any other deletion rationale, I have to say "Keep". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • But he fails WP:N (no multiple independent sources asserting notability), doesn't he? And, really, what's the point of the article? Does it really improve the encyclopedia in any way? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But passing WP:ATHLETE is also sufficient, regardless of the multiple sources thing (though of course we need reliable sources to state that he does pass it) - see the top of that page. I don't have time to investigate the details of the second Romanian division right now, but we should probably do that first: if it turns out it's not fully professional then he's not notable and we can delete him without resorting to argument about whether the article does any good. If it is, we can give our philosophical positions an airing. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken, I suppose. WP:ATHLETE reform has stalled for years; this is the place to attempt it; perhaps now things will change (though I'm not holding my breath). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - does he pass WP:ATHLETE? It appears he has only played matches in the second level of Romanian football, and I don't know if that level is fully professional. Jogurney (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Rapid in the 2nd division when he played for them? The club is definitely in Liga I now. matt91486 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the link provided only has him playing twice for Electromagnetica (Rapid II) and zero times for the Rapid first team. Jogurney (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even nom admits he passes WPATHLETE. GiantSnowman 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try taking that thinking to the next level. Say he passes. So what? How does this "article", bound to remain in micro-stub form, in any way improve the encyclopedia? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see [[1]] for concerns about systemic bias. Romanian league sources are harder to come by on the internet, yes. That is not to say any sources don't exist. matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the chances someone will look through back issues of Gazeta Sporturilor in the hopes of finding information on Sardescu, then coming back here to expand the article, are...? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of something aren't relevant. Stubs are acceptable articles. matt91486 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:STUB presumes stubs will eventually leave that state. 2. The odds (in this case almost nil) are indeed relevant. Combine the fact that Sardescu's notability is a very shaky proposition with the reality that what we have now is what we will always have on him, and the case for deletion only gets stronger. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted for keep, because at this point, it doesn't appear he meets WP:ATHLETE. I'm just pointing out that your rationale is at least in part faulty. I believe you're drastically misreading WP:STUB. matt91486 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence that he has played in the I Liga and playing for Rapid II should not be sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to this page the only team he played for are Electromagnetica Bucheresti, who are actually Rapid Bucherest's reserve team (and that was only twice). Therefore, he actually fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not long ago, somebody nominated a former Finance Minister of Italy for deletion, apparently questioning whether the criteria are met (fortunately, that nomination was stopped). Now, this guy (isn't he actually named Sărdescu, btw?) runs around with a ball in a squad that will most likely never make the first division in a parochial league (yes, my country's league is and will be parochial). He is 27, meaning that the chances this will change are slim to none, unless he gets picked up by a better team just before he retires. The only kind of "expansion" this article can look forward to would involve contributions from die-hard fans, relatives or the very subject of this article (the "he enjoys long walks on the beach and dancing to salsa music" kind). If this meets WP:ATHLETE (which I seriously doubt), then WP:ATHLETE needs to be reassessed. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we actually proposing to delete on the basis of how good a footballer is? will make for nice long discussions, but not much in the way of articles. DGG (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment No - I don't see anybody doing that. But, nota bene, "how good a football player he is", when stripped of its subjectivity and checked against rankings, does add a layer of relevance: I have no idea how "good" the subject of this article is, but he did not win any awards, never played in a notable division, is likely to end his career in what is, by all standards, the margin of a mediocre league (in sports and especially soccer, that mediocrity is easily discernable, given that exhausive rankings of championships and teams are a requirement). Now, he may be an undiscovered Ronaldinho in theory, but the key term here is "undiscovered" - wikipedia does not discover or help discover players, it simply records the achievements of players who have been discovered by others. If and when he becomes notable for something other than simply playing for a team (and that something may even be something negative, for the sake of argument), I'm willing to reconsider my vote or help restore the content. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As nom mentioned, he does pass WP:ATHLETE, and the rationale "that doesn't mean he should be included" doesn't quite sit right. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Arakunem^Talk 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that he passes WP:ATHLETE and the only matches we have confirmation of are for the second (reserve) team of Rapid. They do not play in a fully professional league as far as I can tell. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote, as it does seem that Rapid II is a "minor league" (to use a US term) team. He is reported on the roster of Rapid I, albeit with no games played. I still think he meets the spirit of ATHLETE, so I won't say delete. The wording of ATHLETE is somewhat ambiguous, though its current form suggests a requirement for games played. I agree with the comment above somewhere that ATHLETE needs some revisiting to establish more clarity in this area... Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to passing WP:ATHLETE he also meets WP:FOOTYN Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He's only played twice, and that was for Rapid's reserve team in a semi-professional league - how exactly does he pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps only passed WP:ATHLETE then. Nominator has already conceded he does in the nomination, so we don't have to investigate further. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence (sources) that show he passes either WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN. I'm not sure the nominator understood the "plays in a fully professional league" requirement when he stated it passed. Jogurney (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he fails WP:ATHLETE, as stated by a lot of users above - Rapid II does not play in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2008 (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.