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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman: There are sources sthat how he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands among many other sources, like [1], [2], [3], and [4] among many other sources. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the Saipan Tribune articles count as one source, and the mvariety page is obviously a press release from Seton Hall so is not independent. The article needs SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary RS, which it lacks currently. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet WP:SPORTCRIT is met with one reference, let alone 3 over a 2-year period in a national newspaper. The first in particular is very in-depth. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saipan Tribune is not a "national newspaper" in any sense that would indicate notability beyond that of every online paper serving a community <60k. As I said before, the three refs count as one source since they represent commentary by one newspaper (in fact, by just one reporter from one newspaper). JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Which doesn't mean NSPORT is met, since that requires multiple sources. He does not meet our notability standards, he meets the minimal requirements for an athlete bio to be in mainspace when unchallenged and is afforded somewhat more presumption that further coverage exists. However, when others have looked and not been able to locate more independent SIGCOV, that presumption is rebutted. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NSport is met - this reference is very good. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of NSPORT? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. This doesn't absolve the subject from actually meeting GNG, it's literally just the bare minimum for all athlete articles. One piece of purely local non-trivial coverage of his collegiate career does not cut it. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough significant coverage of this person to meet the GNG --GuerilleroParlez Moi 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRITA person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable. The Blue Ayuyus’ Relucio gets recognition has some significant coverage, but a lot of interviewing and lacks a disinterested tone. A WP:BLP has to be more than a pseudo biography or just mainly statistics. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2022 (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.