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. GNG generally trumps an SNG if sources exist Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Laryea[edit]

Richie Laryea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on "some stuff found through google", but without addressing the underlying concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 1 and 2 were published before the draft. Source 1 in particular provides substantial biographical material about the subject. Sources 2 and 3 also provide significant biographical material about the subject.

    Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
    Cunard (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow editors time to evaluate the additional sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even when all three sources provided by Cunard are merged with the sources provided by RonSigPi and the three sources extant in the article (to provide 7 total sources since 2 are duplicated), I still don't see WP:GNG being met because 6 of those sources do not focus on Laryea, and the other is a local paper performing local coverage. My delete !vote stands unless a more in-depth biographical piece from either a nation-wide source (e.g. ESPN or TSN) or a source located outside the Toronto, Akron, and Orlando areas can be located. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging GiantSnowman, Fenix down, and Joseph2302 to review these additional sources as they also cast delete !votes. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still think it should be deleted. Per @Jkudlick: above, the 3 new sources presented don't show a depth of coverage enough to pass WP:GNG. Only the first local source covers Laryea in any detail. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also accept a userfy/move to draftspace, as he's just signed for a fully professional team, and seems likely he will play for them in the next few months. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also still go for delete, the sources presented are just routine transfer talk / speculation on how great this player will be. The fundamental point at issue is that this is a person whom editors are claiming is notable as a footballer when he has not actually played football at any notable level yet.
  • Comment - So we should keep the article in anticipation that the subject will become notable? How does that work with reference to current notability guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2016 (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.