Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Vandelli


 * 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 to delete. All the keep !votes were "per" a weak keep !vote which depended on interviews with the subject to argue for notability. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicolas Vandelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY and nothing suggests he meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes seems to just about pass wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:
 * Queensland Soccer News - significant interview with the player, already in the article
 * sofoot.com - significant interview with the player, already in the article
 * Image of dedicated newspaper coverage of the player
 * Although he hasn't played at a hugely high level, his career path does seem to have garnered some significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I'm not convinced that the article could satisfy the GNG. I'll concede that So Foot is a reliable source, but "Queensland Soccer News" appears to be a self-published blog. That leaves us with a single interview in a reliable source, which although it is not routine coverage, I don't think it's enough by itself. I've searched for more online coverage and can't find other articles which would meet the parameters of significant coverage in a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Fenix down. Subject's career doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY but may pass WP:GNG. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fenix down. Ross-c (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. In agreement with Jogurney, I don't see evidence of the "significant" coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  Deli nk (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jogurney, I agree there is not significant ongoing in depth coverage and the individual has not achieved anything of note. Having an article in a paper does not make one noteworthy for an encyclopaedia unless said article(s) show that the subject is notable, or "worthy of notice". I don't agree any coverage here shows this guy is notable. Club Oranje T 10:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Jogurney. Player fails the subject-specific notability guideline, so needs to be shown to pass GNG. This one hasn't been. One interview in SoFoot's players abroad thread does not notability make. The Queensland Soccer News thing is the sort of trivial "who is" piece you get in a match programme at levels where they have match progammes, and the only newspaper image I see on his Fieldoo promo page is a routine "manager thinks new signings will help improve club". I can't find anything not already in the article that would add evidence of sufficient significant coverage in WP:RS to pass GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2017 (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.