Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eder Sarabia (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eder Sarabia[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)

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL. Barely passed a previous AFD due to multiple sockpuppet voters (since blocked). Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably passes GNG due to sources included since last AFD. Giant Snowman 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the first nomination (which had a very poor storyline and far less sources) was closed on keep, I don't see any reason to make this one a delete. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets GNG with coverage just looking at recent as coach for FC Andorra. Including international coverage in The Guardian. Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems well sourced --dashiellx (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat weak as the sources seem WP:ROUTINE I feel there is enough there to warrant an article. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and meets GNG ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG due to avialbility of good sources. Juggyevil (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure if I'm seeing an edited/newer version of the page for the subject, but easily passes WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does its best to get as much out of the coverage available, nevertheless there is enough there to count as multiple sources showing more than trivial coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems we are nearing consenus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2021 (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.