The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing (rehashes of team website, social media, press releases) is not suitable. If someone believes they can identify compliant sourcing and wants to work on it in draft space, happy to provide. However I doubt it's forthcoming in the timeline of a relist. Star Mississippi 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Prod removed on the basis that subject plays in a certain football league. That doesn't confer notability. Coverage is limited to routine blurbs from local sports publications. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the certain deluge of keep votes from people unwilling to let go of WP:NFOOTY. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided, but the keep vote arguments are weak, with the only coverage of sufficient size shown to be clearly
a primary source. There's obviously some trivial coverage but no real suggestion of any thing more. Extending to provide more time to add to the sources if possible, but editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of
WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing (rehashes of team website, social media, press releases) is not suitable. If someone believes they can identify compliant sourcing and wants to work on it in draft space, happy to provide. However I doubt it's forthcoming in the timeline of a relist. Star Mississippi 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Prod removed on the basis that subject plays in a certain football league. That doesn't confer notability. Coverage is limited to routine blurbs from local sports publications. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the certain deluge of keep votes from people unwilling to let go of WP:NFOOTY. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided, but the keep vote arguments are weak, with the only coverage of sufficient size shown to be clearly
a primary source. There's obviously some trivial coverage but no real suggestion of any thing more. Extending to provide more time to add to the sources if possible, but editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of
WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)