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. ✗plicit 01:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Marques (football manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Another sub-standard page created by User:Das osmnezz. Fails WP:GNG, and the subject of the article is very irrelevant, TBH. I'd also recommend a topic ban for the user, removing the user's rights to create pages, since several other users complained about the quality of the articles overall, and it has not improved ever since. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly notable witht he sources already in the article and many more Portuguese sources and he has ongoing career at one of top Premier League clubs. Saying a sporting director at one of top Premier League clubs is "irrelevant tbh" is a great rationale. I have definitely improved my page creation, especially formatting and will continue to improve, which has led to me creating way less articles than before. I always mind my own business and have never once attacked others unless I am attacked... I find threats from users like this one incredibly funny... nothing against them or their articles but I'm not super clear why someone whose last few articles include Albert Niculăesei Evellyn Marques, Izan Yurrieta etc is asking me to stop creating articles, like I am confused how they are somehow signifcantly better quality (I won't even get into the notability part, I do not think they should be deleted but am certain if I created them they would be deleted) than my recent pages like Johan Manzambi, Gaël Lafont, and Robinio Vaz etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both you and BrazilianDude70 should save conduct disputes for User Talk pages and appropriate noticeboards, and keep it respectful. AfD is not a place to call for topic bans or the removal of user rights. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Das osmnezz: This is far from being a "threat"... I have raised the issue with you several times, yet you still continue to create one-line articles with the same pattern.

  You told me and @GiantSnowman that you would be improving your past creations. What about some of these: Ferrán Quetglas, Jesús Fortea, Óscar Mesa and so on? They're still pretty much the same, and they've improved when others actually took some time to do it. Seems like a clear WP:BURDEN to me, but @Zanahary is indeed correct: this is not the place to report this... I'll create an ANI or something like this when I have the time.

  About Marques, I still think one article from New York Times is not enough if there aren't actually any information about the guy, but I'll wait for other inputs (that's the main reason I've created this AfD). BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last thing I will say about this on this deletion discussion: I have no idea why you are bringing up articles I have made a year ago... I have apologized, owned up to my old stuff and have clearly improved since then... if the whole issue is that I should go back and improve them, sure, I will put that on my priorities... ... you still have not clarified how your articles are somehow so superior to my recent ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: I did clarify, you didn't understand. None of those articles have WP:BURDEN, that means users will only edit them to actually improve them instead of having to fix simple stuff. Plus, all are written in a decent way (I think) and have the correct pattern per WP:FOOTY/Players.

I only brought up old articles because you promised in your talk page, more than once, to improve your old creations. I didn't see you do so in every time you promised that. You only created more and more articles, which led to more and more warnings, and more and more empty promises.

Giving you a little perspective: it only took me a minute to find out Marques' full name and POB. All we asked you is more effort to create pages, to avoid more complains. Is not that hard, is it? :) BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol my bad, I kept on interpreting it as mainly complaining about problems with recent ones instead of the improvement of old ones... I misunderstood the emphasis on the fixing of old creations so kept on creating new articles to show improvement. I am going to vastly improve many old articles, starting with the three above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—a recent, in-depth profile by the New York Times is cited. This isn't good enough? Seems good enough. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Portugal, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but just. There's probably enough coverage between NYT and Echo to justify. However, I agree with BR that the article is sub-par and the latest in a long line of examples from Das osmnezz. GiantSnowman 18:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough to satisfy GNG here imo. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per above, nothing based on policy that justifies the deletion. Svartner (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2025 (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.