Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Greenhill


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Frankly, there is no consensus as to whether or not there is independent, sustained, reliable coverage. Certainly there are strongly held opinions on each side... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Gary Greenhill

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

The article fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG. 1keyhole (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC article is a routine transfer report with no in-depth coverage of Greenhill. I'm having trouble accessing the pay-walled article from The Courier. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Courier article confirms his involvement in the catering firm but the only reference to football is tangential and of no value establishing notability in that regard: "They have now secured partnerships with Gym64 in Kirkcaldy, Raw Pressed in St Andrews, East Fife Football Club and some local gyms in Leven." Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Eastmain. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the sources added are significant coverage. GiantSnowman 20:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I've started to update the article, I've added a number of references, If you're interested, I actually think the game, arrest and trail, built with the other stuff is enough to pass basic GNG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not enough for me, yet. Remember, this person is supposed to be notable for being a footballer. The sources have scant information about his career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not enough, it's a bit BLP1E. GiantSnowman 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * How can it be one event? He got sent off in one event, won a league in another event and from a twitter post get suspended for 16 matches in another event! :/ Govvy (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's tabloid nonsense and you know it. GiantSnowman 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. Being charged with an assault that was later dropped doesn't mean a pass of GNG either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer, WP:BASIC tells us that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe I have done that with the amount of sources I've added since this AfD has been nominated. This footballer has been involved in multiple incidents in his career, up's and downs. I feel what I have added shows that. Govvy (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete It's pretty meagre stuff. It isn't tenable that a less-than-notable footballing career, entirely in the lower leagues, save half a match, is regarded as amounting to notability if scraped together with a few reports of petty thuggery and involvement in a small business, even if expanded by a side role in gossip about a micro-celeb who isn't themself deemed worthy of an article of their own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * reply What are your thoughts on what WP:BASIC should be? And ye, I didn't see how to use that gossip bit! That's why I dumped it in ref-ideas on talk page. But overall, I found rather a few hits and some goods ones on his sending off's. Tell me, don't you feel I've built a decent picture there? Govvy (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Decent picture or not, it's not a notable one. WP:BASIC is not an indication that weight of numbers of sources mentioning the subject is a substitute for the significance, or lack thereof. For instance, if there are multiple court reports in the press for drink driving offences by the dame in the panto at the Adam Smith Theatre, that does not establish their notability as an actor, or offender. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Na, you totally lost me there, "substitute for the significance, or lack thereof."? I did not understand this statement. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * BASIC does not mean that having lots of sources, in itself, establishes notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think you have enough sources for notability in Scottish football. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reporting on his 2008 and 2014 incidents are routine primary news pieces, not evidence of sustained secondary coverage. An article based on these sources would violate BLP/NPOV. Nothing here approaches SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do footballers get continued coverage, because they are sports people. This player has played what you call top level football in Scotland, covered a fair bit by different sources over a period of time. There is more on the web to find. I honestly feel you no longer understand the term basic coverage. You don't need SIGCOV for BASIC. Basic is the concept where you are not using in-depth coverage for the fact there is enough coverage among the spread of sources provided. Often I've noticed people go and run an in-depth analysis on each source and completely forgetting to count all the sources together. You can take all sources together, the one liners, the paragraphs from others, the whole article from another. Not one delete vote is doing that, there-for there is a complete dilution of the understanding of what constitutes BASIC. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * NBASIC doesn't override NOT, which excludes routine news events such as crime reports and match recaps from contributing to notability. The subject also still needs the SIGCOV source per SPORTSBASIC. If you have to cobble together a bunch of one-liners to generate a biography, especially for a subject in the internet era, you're doing something wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Far as I am concerned, I don't think you understand what BASIC notability is. Govvy (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If your idea of BASIC is just add all the sources together, take the prose from each citation, combine it into one word document and see how much prose is there, then every single person in my family would have 20+ sentences of prose from secondary independent RS spread across 2+ sources and covering large segments of our lives, merely because we've won some regional awards and played sports. One of my classmates committed felonies several years apart that each received continuing coverage of his trials in two different cities -- I guess that qualifies him too. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave you an example of collected sources and how to view them in a different perspective and you throw that out as meaningless? The exact same process happens at every other article from David Beckham to Mahatma Gandhi, people collect sources and build an article. I don't see how your delete argument is an constructive argument. If anything, there is this bias nature about it. I am frankly bemused by you and others like you. Govvy (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Comments !! Source
 * Game report || 1. "Dunfermline 1-1 Dundee Utd". BBC Sport. 14 April 2004. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Routine sports news about a signing || 2. ^ "Dalziel makes McMullan his first signing at Raith Rovers". The Herald. Scotland. 8 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Game report || 3. ^ "Berwick Rangers 0-3 Dumbarton". BBC Sport. 15 January 2005. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Game report || 4. ^ "Stenhousemuir 2-3 Berwick Rangers". BBC Sport. 30 December 2006. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Game report || 5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Berwick Rangers 1-0 Arbroath". BBC Sport. 21 April 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Routine sports news about a signing bonus || 6. ^ "Triple signing boost for Berwick". BBC Sport. 15 May 2007. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
 * Routine sports news about a signing || 7. ^ "East Fife sign Greenhill and Fox". BBC Sport. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * Game report || 8. ^ "East Fife 3 - 1 Stranraer". The Herald. Scotland. 27 August 2007. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
 * Game report || 9. ^ "Dumbarton 5-2 Berwick". Daily Record. 2 November 2008. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * GiantSnowman had it right, this is tabloid coverage of bad behavior, not SIGCOV || 10. ^ Mathieson, Jack (3 November 2008). "Exclusive: Cops charge Berwick Rangers footballer over 'push' on referee". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 11. ^ Mathieson, Jack (26 December 2008). "Red card ref attacker has case thrown out of court". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 12. ^ "Footballer fined for 'you're dead, referee' tweet". The Scotsman. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 13. ^ "Footballer fined for Twitter threats". The Courier & Advertiser. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023 – via pressreader.
 * About a food catering business subject is involved in, no SIGCOV about subject. || 14. ^ Okhai, Mariam (18 July 2022). "Fife entrepreneurs serve up 3,000 dishes a week with Super Lean meal prep business". The Courier. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
 * }
 * I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe).  // Timothy :: talk  00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Game report || 9. ^ "Dumbarton 5-2 Berwick". Daily Record. 2 November 2008. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * GiantSnowman had it right, this is tabloid coverage of bad behavior, not SIGCOV || 10. ^ Mathieson, Jack (3 November 2008). "Exclusive: Cops charge Berwick Rangers footballer over 'push' on referee". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 11. ^ Mathieson, Jack (26 December 2008). "Red card ref attacker has case thrown out of court". Daily Record. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 12. ^ "Footballer fined for 'you're dead, referee' tweet". The Scotsman. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
 * See above || 13. ^ "Footballer fined for Twitter threats". The Courier & Advertiser. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023 – via pressreader.
 * About a food catering business subject is involved in, no SIGCOV about subject. || 14. ^ Okhai, Mariam (18 July 2022). "Fife entrepreneurs serve up 3,000 dishes a week with Super Lean meal prep business". The Courier. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
 * }
 * I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe).  // Timothy :: talk  00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See above || 13. ^ "Footballer fined for Twitter threats". The Courier & Advertiser. 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2023 – via pressreader.
 * About a food catering business subject is involved in, no SIGCOV about subject. || 14. ^ Okhai, Mariam (18 July 2022). "Fife entrepreneurs serve up 3,000 dishes a week with Super Lean meal prep business". The Courier. Archived from the original on 15 May 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2023.
 * }
 * I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe).  // Timothy :: talk  00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * }
 * I think the closest this comes to SIGCOV are the 2Es the subject was involved in and these were about minor incidents (both resulted in a league fine and missed games, one was thrown out of court), not something that someone becomes notable for. Corret me if I'm wrong, but fines and game suspensions are reasonably common? (they are in the United States, I'm assuming it is the same in Europe).  // Timothy :: talk  00:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Per quota to games played, footballers that play football, red cards are uncommon, player fines are rare and a 16-match ban is extremely rare. That event holds SIGCOV on it's own. There were a few other sources for that I didn't add. I am not sure about your breakdown here, I have added the sources per fact, to cover that fact. So other than your dream for complete in-depth coverage on each source?! :/ Really... just add all the sources together, take the prose from each citation, combine it into one word document and see how much prose is there. And then tell me, does that one document have in-depth coverage. Govvy (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the references are a bit tabloidy - but wait, there's more. This Australian article about the Big Brother Incident - which no one seems to have mentioned yet. There's enough here for GNG, even without the tabloid stuff. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Incident mentioned, with agreement as to its triviality. I can't access your article link I'm afraid, getting "A System Problem has Occurred To begin a new session, please login again.". Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it has been mentioned - subtlty. I've fixed the link. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete clear fail of GNG, as demonstrated by source evaluation above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per source analysis above. There is no significant coverage beyond a few tabloid-style entries. Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Timothy's source evaluation. Most are routine coverage. SWinxy (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes GNG. Source table above is biased, and tabloid coverage can be significant IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Biased? what? SWinxy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Scotsman is a tabloid now? (well, I guess most of them are - even The Times - but is the paper size they print on relevant? The table is biased, simply dismissing this good Scotsman source as a "Tabloid" Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ye, it's really bizarre, delete voting, disregarding BBC, The Scotsman and The Courier & Advertiser! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've gone ahead and evaluated the sources again. For future-proofing, I am referring to this revision.
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Source(s) !Evaluation !Policy or Comment
 * 1-6
 * not SIGCOV
 * Passing mentions only.
 * 7
 * not SIGCOV
 * Per WP:SPORTCRIT, mentions in databases with "low, generic standards of inclusion" do not establish notability. these BBC SPORT "reports" on games and transfers have almost no standard of inclusion, they report on practically all matches and transfers.
 * 8
 * not SIGCOV
 * Passing mention only.
 * 9
 * not SIGCOV
 * Again, this is a report on a match from a source that generates these reports indiscriminately.
 * 10
 * Borderline
 * This coverage of an event that is specific to Greenhill constitutes significant coverage. The low reliability of the source poses an issue, especially since it's an allegation of a crime relating to a WP:BLP. To me, it's not clear that the Daily Record is sufficiently reliable to be used as the source for such an allegation.
 * 11
 * Borderline
 * Additional coverage of the alleged "shove" again constitutes SIGCOV, but the issue of low source liability persists.
 * 12
 * Good
 * Low circulation <10,000 of the source newspaper (The Scotsman) is not optimal, but this still contributes to notability. Allegation of a crime / serious misconduct (causing fear and alarm) needs to be well-supported, see below.
 * 13
 * Good
 * Additional reporting on the same incident by a different source means this incident can likely be included in an article.
 * 14
 * not SIGCOV
 * I cannot access this article due to a paywall, but going off of Robby.is.on's summary, this is not significant coverage of the individual.
 * }
 * There is significant coverage of Greenhill in 4 references coming from 3 different sources. One of them has limited reliability, but two of them (coincidentally reporting on the same incident) appear reliable. I think this collection of reporting quite clearly meets the threshold for notability. As I mention above, I don't think the coverage in BBC SPORT is significant enough to contribute to notability, but of course it can be used to verify individual claims. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is thoughtful, however I think it's important to also consider SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS. The incident reported in sources 12 and 13 would certainly constitute a "single event", and if an article was to be written from its coverage (and we should be basing the article on the sources that provide SIGCOV) it would be emphasizing a relatively minor fining incident that received some coverage in one news cycle in a couple small Scottish newspapers... JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an issue. WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E provide some guidance, but it's certainly a tricky situation. Here are some factors going into my interpretation:
 * According to BIO1E, "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person." However, in my opinion, it would be absurd to have an article entitled "Greenhill Shove of Referee" or "Greenhill Tweet Scandal" as opposed to just an article on Greenhill himself. If Greenhill is notable, he is notable as a footballer, not as a referee-shover or tweeter. The events are certainly less notable than the individual. Nowadays, nobody cares about death threats on Twitter; unfortunately, they are nothing out of the ordinary. The only reason this was reported on at all was who was making the threat. If this event is notable, it is notable in virtue of its association to Greenhill, not on its own.
 * The one-event-rule in WP:SUSTAINED is qualified by this condition: "if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event [...]". A part of me wants to say that the shoving incident and the twitter incident were distinct events, but that feels like rule-lawyering. So instead, I will point out that he has received SIGCOV as a footballer (within the context of his games), even if not for his football abilities in the strict sense. All the coverage exists within the context of him being a professional footballer, and he will most likely continue to be just that for a while. Thus, at least in my mind, he is notable as a footballer, even if not for being a particularly outstanding one at his craft.
 * Govvy said he plays at the "top level" of Scottish football. I don't know enough about Scottish football to evaluate that claim, but taking it to be true, here's another thought: A player who plays a country's most popular sport at the national level and has received coverage beyond that mere fact is probably notable.
 * For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot access this article due to a paywall, but going off of Robby.is.on's summary, this is not significant coverage of the individual.
 * }
 * There is significant coverage of Greenhill in 4 references coming from 3 different sources. One of them has limited reliability, but two of them (coincidentally reporting on the same incident) appear reliable. I think this collection of reporting quite clearly meets the threshold for notability. As I mention above, I don't think the coverage in BBC SPORT is significant enough to contribute to notability, but of course it can be used to verify individual claims. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is thoughtful, however I think it's important to also consider SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS. The incident reported in sources 12 and 13 would certainly constitute a "single event", and if an article was to be written from its coverage (and we should be basing the article on the sources that provide SIGCOV) it would be emphasizing a relatively minor fining incident that received some coverage in one news cycle in a couple small Scottish newspapers... JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an issue. WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E provide some guidance, but it's certainly a tricky situation. Here are some factors going into my interpretation:
 * According to BIO1E, "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person." However, in my opinion, it would be absurd to have an article entitled "Greenhill Shove of Referee" or "Greenhill Tweet Scandal" as opposed to just an article on Greenhill himself. If Greenhill is notable, he is notable as a footballer, not as a referee-shover or tweeter. The events are certainly less notable than the individual. Nowadays, nobody cares about death threats on Twitter; unfortunately, they are nothing out of the ordinary. The only reason this was reported on at all was who was making the threat. If this event is notable, it is notable in virtue of its association to Greenhill, not on its own.
 * The one-event-rule in WP:SUSTAINED is qualified by this condition: "if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event [...]". A part of me wants to say that the shoving incident and the twitter incident were distinct events, but that feels like rule-lawyering. So instead, I will point out that he has received SIGCOV as a footballer (within the context of his games), even if not for his football abilities in the strict sense. All the coverage exists within the context of him being a professional footballer, and he will most likely continue to be just that for a while. Thus, at least in my mind, he is notable as a footballer, even if not for being a particularly outstanding one at his craft.
 * Govvy said he plays at the "top level" of Scottish football. I don't know enough about Scottish football to evaluate that claim, but taking it to be true, here's another thought: A player who plays a country's most popular sport at the national level and has received coverage beyond that mere fact is probably notable.
 * For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Govvy said he plays at the "top level" of Scottish football. I don't know enough about Scottish football to evaluate that claim, but taking it to be true, here's another thought: A player who plays a country's most popular sport at the national level and has received coverage beyond that mere fact is probably notable.
 * For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For my conclusion, I will (for the first time) invoke WP:IAR, relying on WP:COMMONSENSE for policy interpretation. To me, and this is distinctly a matter of opinion, the volume of coverage is sufficient to show that there is real value in having an article about this person. In the end, the notability criteria exist to ensure that articles provide some value to readers. It's not unusual for biographies to land on this razor edge of just barely meeting the technical notability criteria set out in policies and guidelines. Of course we can count sources and argue endlessly about the precise threshold of source reliability or the duration of "sustained" reporting required to establish notability, but it is more practical to ask: "Does this article make Wikipedia better, does it provide readers with value to have it here?" and "Is that value outweighed by the confusion or ambiguity the article could create?" And to me, in this case, the answers are Yes and No, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. The problem is that this article is structured on him being a footballer. Meanwhile, the sources certifying notability are for other miscellaneous events, for which the coverage, quite frankly, is not in-depth nor significant. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is borderline, and good faith attempts have been made to improve the article, but the material here does not meet my bar for SIGCOV once routine coverage has been accounted for. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * keep I don't buy sources don't count because their coverage is about something negative. Sources aren't great, but enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2023 (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.