Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Joseph (footballer)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Joseph (footballer)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per sources to this article add there. If anyone opposes as non reliable, these shown here, [1] [2]let me know here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These doesn't even come close too meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ivan Milenin. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10+. By the time I finish writing this, another 10+ will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage as required by NSPORTS and GNG. The two sources presented by Ivan Milenin are mere passing mentions which do not contribute to SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above insufficient. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sources noted above are passing mentions and not significant enough to pass GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mentions are not sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial mentions are never ever enough. Aside from that we have the usual database websites. Clear delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and what is out there would not in my opinion support a notability claim. --Canyouhearmenow 12:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.