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 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)[reply]

Genny Rondinella[edit]

Genny Rondinella (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)

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)[reply]

As far as I can see, those sources only give trivial coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tuttocampo article is entirely about him; it's not a trivial mention of him. See WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What you call "routine coverage" is just regular acceptable coverage to me. They are definitely not trivial and go into enough detail on the subject and his professional football career. I think that we have a deeply different opinion on that. --Angelo (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand. How is this anything but routine match coverage? agtx 12:25, 13 May 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.