Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fausto Omar Vásquez


 * 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. assertions that the subject passes GNG have not been met with compiant sourcing. Star  Mississippi  14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Fausto Omar Vásquez

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Out of curiosity, was a WP:BEFORE done before the nomination? I did a short search and quickly found this substantial coverage so I'm wondering if a thorough search has been done or if the nomination only based the GNG failure on the sources in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That appears to be an interview, and isn't independent from the subject? BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is independent from the subject, it's a valid reference.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not if it doesn't include any significant coverage apart from what the subject said. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was interested in knowing whether the nominator had looked for any more sources, because if not then I was thinking about trying a thorough search as I found the above source promising. BilledMammal is absolutely right about that if there isn't any significant coverage apart from what the subject said in an interview then it shouldn't count towards GNG. Interviews often do include various statements about the subject by the interviewer which could count towards GNG but whether that is the case here is a matter of an opinion. However, all of that would be mute if there weren't any other significant sources as GNG requires multiple significant sources. While I haven't done a thorough search yet, I did come up with this one while Googling his name+nickname. I will probably do a better search tonight, right now I'm bouncing between weak delete/weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, just no.Tvx1 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, also not notable as a coach. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.