Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Batista

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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Batista

[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)

Had a brief professional career with Freamunde then dropped to amateur level and disappeared. My searches only yielded social media, stats sites and mentions on Blogspot. I couldn't find anything that would count towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. No sources and a primary EL and stat page. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are 404, and stats. BEFORE showed stats, mentions in game articles, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting for the record that this is a duplicate !vote. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2023 (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.