Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Moleski


 * 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. Coverage seems to be limited to a minor local newspaper, and current guideline is that just appearing in matches doesn't count as notability. The keep !votes are given lower weight due to vague waves at a policy/assertions/keep per someone else. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

George Moleski

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

Fails WP:GNG with a single pro appearance. No WP:SIGCOV found on Google or ProQuest, as well as a single passing mention on Newspapers.com. JTtheOG (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and United Kingdom. JTtheOG (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks okay to me and there are a few other sources online for the player. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mind sharing a couple? I was not able to find much of anything significant myself. Thanks. JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per . Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. ??? This article has 14 garbage sources that combined don't amount to a single independent sentence on this retired semi-pro footballer. Did keep !voters bother to look at the sources in the article before claiming it "looks okay" and the subject "passes GNG"? Or did they somehow find SIGCOV in the ZERO Google News and Google News Archives hits for him? For reference, here's what's in the article: 1. Database entry on Barry Hugman's Footballers (an SPS). 2. Announcement from his former team about ending his contract. 3. Player profile (stats) on ESPN (currently just redirects to landing page, here is the archived version). 4 & 5. Soccerbase stats. 6. Same ESPN profile as 3. 7 & 8. Stats profile/announcement on Slough Town FC's own website. 9. Stats profile on a fan blog. 10. Routine transactional report naming him in a list of players released from Slough Town. 11. Stats database that doesn't mention him. 12. Stats profile. 13. Trivial mention in a Penn & Tylers Green FC blog post. 14. Stats profile. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Seriously! Slough Observer has three articles to work with,, , . That was done in an instant, I am not going to do work for other people. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Match reports are routine coverage and don't count for GNG. None of those sources provide significant coverage of Moleski. Dougal18 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What @Dougal18 said, and also, separate articles in the same newspaper count as ONE source. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The Slough Observer is a local newspaper covering the town of Slough. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 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.