Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago López (soccer, born 2005)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Santiago López (soccer, born 2005)

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

Lacks notability, SIGCOV issues EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football,  and Mexico. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article seems to have enough WP:SIGCOV. These two sources have in-depth coverage, I also found this one: . Svartner (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject easily meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep—Easy keep. Easily meets WP:SIGCOV per Svartner's post above and those found in the article itself. Anwegmann (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV. ADifferentMan (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passes GNG. I suggest this is a POINTy nomination, given the OP's behaviour at Articles for deletion/Matias Fernandez-Pardo shortly before this nomination. GiantSnowman 09:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject has multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV already in the article to meet the WP:GNG. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - when an article is already well sourced like this, I would expect a source analysis with a clear explanation as to why each source doesn't satisfy SIGCOV requirements if wishing to pursue deletion. The ones highlighted by Svartner look good enough to me. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 15 June 2024 (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.