Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soakai Vea


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Soakai Vea

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick google search seems to confer significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence? None of the sources in the article are both "independent" and address the subject "directly and in detail" as required by GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - The reason I am submitting a delete comment is because the article is not sourced with independent and reliable sources and I cannot locate any such sources elsewhere. The football association is not properly independent of the player. Another association piece is also not sufficiently independent. Boxscore article is of questionable reliability and any regard, references the subject only trivially. As the article subject is not significantly covered by multiple, secondary, independent, reliable sources. It hence does not meet WP:GNG. There is no specific criteria at NSPORT that applies. Taking a look at the most recent discussion of sport criteria here, a number of proposals were suggested and community consensus was most clear with the proposal that at least one instance of significant coverage is required. I am not seeing that here. Nothing comes up on Google, nothing on Newspapers, Wikipedia library draws a blank, as does Wayback. I sometimes avoid sports articles because people tend to flock to these with "sources exist". not good enough. Show me your sources. I will change my vote to keep, and vehemently defend an article that has good sourcing and meets guidelines! Sometimes I try to strengthen the keep argument by going further than what is required and incorporating them into the article. I want to see notable content stay, but simply saying "it is notable" is not a valid argument. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:03, 22 June 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.