Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago Rublico

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. By my count the numerical tilt is 12-9 in favor of keeping, but several "keep" !votes do not engage substantively with the sourcing, and there were serious concerns brought up about several of the sources. However, among the comments that remain there is genuine good-faith disagreement about whether specific sources are substantive enough, and about whether they qualify as intellectually independent of each other. Neither issue is, in my view, clear-cut enough for the closer to disqualify or give lower weight to a set of opinions. As such I don't see a consensus here, and given that's this discussion has been open for a month already (despite only two relists) I'm putting it to rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Rublico[edit]

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

Santiago Rublico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Philippines, and Spain. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources already present on article which show notability. Yet another poorly thought out AFD from Onel5969. GiantSnowman 01:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am confused by the nomination, what is wrong exactly? There are more sources online, just do a google search!! Govvy (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Of the sources in the article, [1] (same article is also linked as [2]) is SIGCOV, [3] is a database listing, [4] is minor article on his teams website and thus a WP:PRIMARY source, [5] does contain some information but not nearly enough to be the second best source in a GNG pass, [6] is a match report with couple of trivial mentions, [7] is a primary source from the Philippine Football Federation that mentions him once in a lineup listing, [8] is a Q&A interview with little prose, [9] is a database listing. If editors can present other significant sources, ping me. Alvaldi (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Depth of sourcing hasn't been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This article is well referenced & well written. More references can also be found online. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the sources presently cited in the article. Abstrakt (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - interesting how only one of the !votes above, for Deletion, is actually based in policy.Onel5969 TT me 17:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it seems all of them are based in policy (the keeps are saying there's sufficient sources for notability/GNG, the delete says there's not). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no they are not. Simply saying something meets WP:GNG, while ignoring the source assessment showing that it does not, is not the same thing.Onel5969 TT me 20:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeing with one user's source analysis does not automatically make one's comments non-policy based. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in this case, the GNG comments are policy based; looking at the GNG sources that were already in the article. I'm troubled that User:onel5969 would suggest that a disagreement over whether some sources are GNG, makes a comment non-policy, when everyone seems to agree that there is one good GNG source (especially when WP:SPORTCRIT is met for this recent and very young player). Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm concerned that Nfitz doesn't understand that SPORTCRIT does not trump GNG, and 1 good source does not meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has said that SPORTCRIT overrules GNG; it's never black and white and should be evaluated in the context of specific deletion discussions. At the same time, there's no requirement in GNG there be multiple sources - what it says is that "multiple sources are generally expected". Furthermore, the claim that there must immediately be more than one GNG source is in contrast to the recent discussion at WT:Notability (sports)#Interplay of NSPORTS and SPORTCRIT! Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Filipino football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As of 5/7, Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 seem to meet the criteria for GNG. This is also a good source - https://vietnam.postsen.com/local/268637/The-defeated-general-of-Vietnam-Tel-suddenly-summoned-Atletico-Madrid-defender-urgently.html. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with sources pointed out in the article and presented by KatoKungLee. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to source analysis by Alvaldi. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now realise that there's a third source not discussed in the source analysis above - in Bahasa Indonesian. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Nfitz. Timothy has done a more recent source evaluation, and the findings are the same. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the Sunstar article which everyone seem to agree is GNG, we also have two that KatoKungLee found above, and one which User:Kokoeist quietly added to the article after the source analysis without commenting here. Looking at KatoKungLee's source above, 1, 5, 7, and 10. 1 is the Sunstar article. 7 is the article the unassessed article that Kokoeist added that I think is GNG. 10, Alvardi dismissed as an interview, and I agree with that. That leaves 5, which Alvadi says "... does contain some information but not nearly enough ..."; I disagree, I think that article is sufficient. So I see 4 GNG sources (from 3 different publications). Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized I missed 9, which is also GNG. That makes 5 GNG sources from 4 articles.; others have included 10 - which I agree is an interview, and isn't GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The SunStar source called SIGCOV above is a profile of him as an 8-year-old, apparently written from an interview with his mother, and does not contain the amount of independent commentary directly on the subject needed to elevate it above the requirements of NYOUTH. An article based on this news piece would also be extraordinarily unbalanced and unencyclopedic because, again, he was 8 years old. The Post Sen piece is a routine call-up sourced from ASEAN Football/other football orgs announcements -- not independent SIGCOV. The first Mundo Deportivo source is another routine call-up hyping an upcoming friendly -- not SIGCOV. The second is a follow-up article with almost identical background info to the first (the last paragraph is essentially duplicated). JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ROUTINE would be a box score or a list of players in a call-up announcement. An article that's all about one player who is called up, is not ROUTINE. I'm not sure the relevance of the two Mundo Deportivo articles having similarities; they already only count as one source, so having two articles almost 3 weeks apart only makes for a stronger claim that this counts as one GNG source. Also, there is no WP:NYOUTH - and I don't know what this is referring to. Nfitz (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that NYOUTH is WP:YOUNGATH. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the available coverage in independent reliable sources is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree with JoelleJay about the SunStar source, and in any event it's insufficient by itself to meet the GNG. The two Deportivo Mundo articles contain some information, but it's not as in-depth as I would expect if this footballer was notable. The overall theme of all of the coverage is this footballer looks promising and might have a future, but until there is more written about his exploits (beyond a couple of friendlies defeats - which he apparently did nothing of note in) I don't see this passing. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Questionable, based mainly on a subjective interview. 1. "Rare talent". SUNSTAR. July 23, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2023.
Database page 2. ^ "Santiago Rublico Colminas". Liga MX (in Mexican Spanish). Sub Internacional. Archived from the original on April 1, 2023. Retrieved April 22, 2023.
Duplicate of above #1 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Rare Talent". SunStar. July 23, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV 4. ^ "Santiago Rublico es nuevo jugador del Atlético Madrileño Juvenil A". September 15, 2022. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
very brief article with very brief coverage of subject, not SIGCOV 5. ^ "El canterano Santi Rublico da el salto a la absoluta de Filipinas". March 19, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Mention in article about game 6. ^ "Philippine Azkals bow to host Kuwait in friendly". March 25, 2023. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Not SIGCOV, promo 7. ^ "Santi Rublico, de ser internacional absoluto con Filipinas a entrenarse con Simeone" (in Spanish). April 1, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023.
Mention in article about game 8. ^ "Philippine Men's Under-22 Squad for the 32nd Southeast Asian Games". April 29, 2023. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
Mention in article about game 9. ^ "Indonesia Gilas Filipina, Bek Atletico Madrid Debut Buruk di SEA Games" (in Indonesian). April 30, 2023. Retrieved May 6, 2023.
Interview 10. ^ "Santi Rublico: «El Rayo, más que un club, es una familia que ha estado ahí siempre en todos los momentos»". Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Database page 11. ^ "Santi Rublico - Global Sports Archive". Retrieved March 26, 2023.
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  21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with some of these, and two (7 and 9) are very misleading.
1) does include material that would be from an interview (I'd question any newspaper article where no one is asking questions!), it isn't an interview.
5) is over 200 words, and is not too short. The example in GNG of something being too short is 14 words. I'm aware of no standard that sets it over 200!
7) you say is promotional - can you look at that again, because that looks like another 200+ word article. I see no promotion.
9) (from CNN) you dismiss as a match report - but it's far more than this, primarily discussion Rubico (mentioning him 10 times!) while only mentioning a single other player (once).
A) Furthermore, you didn't address the Vietnamese source discussed above that isn't in the article; it is also GNG, with 5 of the 7 paragraphs directly addressing the subject.
4) is self-published - I think you may have pasted the wrong text here, User:TimothyBlue - and yes, not GNG. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 1, 5, 7 and 10 indicated by Alvaldi are reliable, and so is the one indicated by KatoKungLee. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 01:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone was suggesting SunStar or Mundo Deportivo were not reliable sources. Matagigantes.net also appears to be a reliable source (it claims to be an independent media outlet with its own group of editors). The problem is none of those sources provide sufficiently in-depth coverage of the subject of the article (and in the case of matagigantes.net, the source isn't independent of the subject as it's a publication of an interview with him). Jogurney (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the sources suggested and I believe that they're in-depth enough for the individual to pass WP:GNG. So, don't you dare argue with me. My "keep" stands no matter what. ASTIG😎🙃 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe User:Jogurney you are forgetting about WP:BASIC in WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.
    Taking the SunStar reference and combining the pair of the Mundo Deportivo references, with the CNN reference (9) and the Vietnamese reference discussed above, does give multiple independent sources that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to quote the rest of that line, which states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those are trivial - they are all articles about the player; which ones of 5), 7), 9), and A) do you consider trivial mentions, User:BilledMammal? I believe they are all far more than a trivial mention that can be combined to demonstrate notability. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that SBKSPP asked Superastig to help save some articles at AfD[10]. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the articles that were discussed (days earlier) were for "a few stations and TV channels". There was no mention of this article. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SBKSPP linked to the Philippines delsort, which this AfD is categorized in. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Someone draws someone else's attentions to some other AFDs about TV stations, and then they noticed this AFD from looking at those, and that's enough to cast aspersions about User:Superastig? Will you go after me next, because Das osmnez was on my talk page just before this nomination, discussing poor nominations last month? Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz, JoelleJay loves to make an issue out of something small like this. It's been a few months since the last time I participated in deletion discussions. All their accusations against me are just sheer hissyfits. I wasn't asked specifically on what article I should vote in. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. Therefore, I don't consider that canvassing. Not canvassing at all. And it's the truth (and nothing but the truth) no matter how judgmental JoelleJay is. ASTIG😎🙃 04:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know I can just go to @Dougal18 or @Alvaldi or @BilledMammal's talk page, link directly to the sportsperson delsort, and ask for help getting articles on footballers deleted. Thumbs up icon JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of the sources are reliable, but they don't demonstrate passing WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC tells us that multiple reliable sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. As the sources in question are far more than trivial, then the reliable sources DO demonstrate that GNG is passed. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple significant and non-trivial sources (the term NBASIC uses is "substantial", which is a higher barrier than "significant" - the example NBASIC gives of a substantial source is a 200 page independent biography). BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NBASIC doesn't use the term "substantial". It uses the term "not substantial" as in "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It's not necessary to prove that any non-substantial sources that are combined to demonstrate notability are substantial! I ask you to strike your comment ... which quite frankly does not make sense - perhaps you misread "not substantial"? Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misread my comment; I'm agreeing that they don't need to be "substantial", but they do need to be "significant and non-trivial", for the reasons I provided. BilledMammal (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I did misread it; in that case, I actually don't understand the comment (or the relevance of 200 page biographies). NBASIC is met. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that it doesn't create an exception to the requirement for multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV; all it says is that we can combine sources that are less than substantial (with the example of being substantial being a 200 page biography), not that we can combine sources that are less than significant. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As documented there are many examples of SIGCOV. I'm glad we can both agree that a 200-page biography would be substantial - I'm not sure what the relevance is though. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This deletion makes zero sense... using TimothyBlue's bizarre and double standard analysis, [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15], all of which have secondary coverage, are somehow all equivalent to small purely promotional and purely Q+A interviews using TimothyBlue's "logic"... and on top of that, Santiago is a clear topic of interest with many sources, many of which are good, and has ongoing career in Philippines senior national team and in academy of Spanish La Liga team Atlético Madrid, both of which receive decent amount of media coverage... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The CNN source is just a match report (routine coverage) that quotes from Communist Party mouthpiece Tien Phong (obviously unreliable). Dougal18 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CNN reference is not routine, User:Dougal18. The article is primarily about the player, mentioning him 10 times. That a single sentence is sourced to a Vietnamese newspaper doesn't make it unreliable. Though I'm not sure why we would consider Tiền Phong unreliable simply because it (like all media in Vietnam) is government-owned. It's not listed at WP:PRP as a problematic source, and even then in similar situations when they are listed, the guideline is to use with caution. I don't think a minor negative comment about a player's performance is an issue; and even if it were, there are 9 other references to him in the CNN article that are not referenced to Tiền Phong! Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a match report about Indonesia U22 v Philippines U22. Making a defensive mistake and conceding a penalty are routine occurrences in football and are not sigcov. If it was sigcov then anyone who has played football would have a Wiki article. "A single sentence is sourced to a Vietnamese newspaper" is inaccurate as the article takes multiple negative quotes from Tien Phong. A newspaper from the 178/180 ranked country by RSF is unreliable regardless of whether it's listed at WP:PRP or not. Dougal18 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a match report. It's a 350-word article about how a single player performed in a match. Even if it had been a match report - WP:ROUTINE tells us that this doesn't make the match significant. It doesn't preclude match reports being GNG sources for other types of article. I was wrong (sorry) about the attribution to Tiền Phong - it's significantly more than one sentence. I don't see how that's an issue though - it's a major publication. We should also reference the original Tiền Phong article; you will notice that it's only about 250 words, and that CNN supplemented the article from Tiền Phong with additional information about Rublico. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are there links to WP:ROUTINE in NSPORT if we are not supposed to apply the definition/examples of "routine" used there to the types of coverage NSPORT considers "routine"? The same material considered routine for notability of events is considered routine for notability of biographies in NSPORT:

    Individual games: A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game
    SPORTBASIC: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage


    NSPORT also explicitly includes match reports in its definition of "routine" in multiple places: repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage and substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. [...] The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

    The relevant portions of ROUTINE linked above are:
    Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even besides that source, the other 4 above don't and using basic logic, heis a clear topic of interest with ongoing career in Philippines senior national team and in academy of Spanish La Liga team Atlético Madrid, both of which receive decent amount of media coverage... he already has satisfactory coverage and will most certainly get way more in the future as he is only 17... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding your focus on ROUTINE. ROUTINE is definitely applicable to NSPORTS - so a routine boxscore, or article that only mentions a player as being in the line-up is definitely ROUTINE. But an article about a player's performance in a match, discussing only that player, isn't routine. You are misapplying ROUTINE, without considering the context. Nfitz (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Game play summaries is not "box scores". Sports matches are explicitly considered routine events that generate routine coverage. These articles are not sufficient to meet the higher standards of YOUNGATH. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE mentions box scores - not extensive articles about a match. Though this isn't even that, as it's about the player in the match. To dismiss this as ROUTINE is fundamentally wrong. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT mentions routine game coverage. Game play summaries are routine game coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that reference in NSPORT it says "local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage". These are not local sources, but are national and international sources. Also as pointed out - the summary in question goes well beyond routine game coverage, but is a discussion of a single player. Nfitz (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only place "routine game coverage" is discussed in NSPORT; and ROUTINE is not limited to just "sports scores", it encompasses all Planned coverage of scheduled events, and the underlying policy just says routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports.
And anyway, most of the coverage is local. Coverage in the Atlético Madrid subsection of the online version of Mundo Deportivo, by dedicated Atlético Madrid reporters, is local.
The human interest story in the Sun Star Cebu outlet is local.
You haven't addressed the YOUNGATH issues. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't addressed the BLUDGEON issues either. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are implying that JoelleJay is bludgeoning, they have made seven replies. You have made twenty-three. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not just referring to JJ. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than issuing vague aspersions, who are you referring to? With this reply I am now on eight. BilledMammal (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about quantity, it's about quality too. Spurious comments claiming that Philippine and Spanish sources are local, while completely ignoring Indonesian and Vietnamese sources is ... unusual. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDistortion 07:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG further subject is 17 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete. Changed from Keep to Delete due to discussion below: Available sources might not be intellectually independent of one another due to government control. I think some of the above arguments miss part of the point of WP:BASIC. What's important is the independence of the source, i.e., the publisher, not interviewees in those publications. My analysis is this: Of the available references in the article, 5 constitue SIGCOV: 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10. These articles are from 4 distinct sources, and there is no indication that any of them are particularly unreliable. Yes, WP:BLP has a high standard for sourcing, but it should be remembered that the claims being made are not particularly contentious. They hardly go beyond "this footballer exists and he plays for this club." With 5 references to articles devoted to either the player himself or his individual performance in a game, WP:BASIC is more than satisfied. This media coverage has also been sustained in the sense that it does not relate to a single event, and it is likely to continue as Rublico continues to play football. I really don't see any reason why this subject would fail the notability criteria. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC); edited 08:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Actualcpscm, content repeating what an interviewee says fails independence and PRIMARY, as mentioned at OR and in numerous other discussions (see various AfDs in both sports[16] and non-sports[17][18][19][20][21]), regardless of where it is published. There are also multiple other problems mentioned above, including passing YOUNGATHLETE, which enforces stricter requirements on source locality and routine coverage. NSPORT also requires athlete articles have at least one cited SIGCOV source, so BASIC is not applicable except under IAR. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi JoelleJay! I couldn't find a policy or guideline referred to as YOUNGATHLETE, could you point me directly to what you're referring to? Since I'm not sure what you mean, I can't comment on that right now.
    I'm happy to set aside the interview for now, but the 4 remaining sources are still good enough. Source locality is not in itself an issue: WP:SPORTCRIT establishes that local sources need to be evaluated with particular care for independence and routine coverage, but none of the sources I have pointed out are routine coverage under WP:ROUTINE. The nature of the CNN Indonesia article with regard to this could be debated, but I would argue that it is not routine coverage as it focusses entirely on one player. I also don't see any reason to believe that they are not independent of the subject, again setting aside the interview for this argument. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi@Actualcpscm, the guideline is WP:YOUNGATH, which states High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

    The other issues with the CNN Indonesia article are that a) it is derived wholly from a news source under absolute control(*) by the Vietnamese Communist Party, and b) it is 100% negative coverage of Rublico. Using it as SIGCOV would result in our article spending a lot of prose strongly deploring his performance at one U22 match of the 2023 SEA Games, based on the analysis of an unnamed reporter in a newspaper owned by the National Communist Youth League and explicitly described as "anti-West".
    JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every Tuesday, the editors of the media that answer directly to the party’s central organs – including VTV, VOV, Nhan Dan, Quan Doi Nhan Dan (People’s Army), Cong An Dan Nhan (People’s Public Security), Lao Dong, Tien Phong, Thanh Nien and Phu Nu – and the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education have to attend a briefing in Hanoi chaired by the heads of the party’s Central Department of Propaganda and Education. During these meetings, the Department of Propaganda and Education tells the media what can and cannot be reported and the way each story should be handled. On Wednesdays, the heads of the provincial departments of propaganda and education go back to their provinces and organize similar meetings with the editors of the local media. The local branches of the Department of Propaganda and Education also give their own instructions to the local media and obviously monitor them. Prevention and guidance are the lifeblood of propaganda.
    JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The government of Vietnam's control of the news is completely irrelevant, and more than any other one-party state. If the article was about a politician, yes take with a grain of salt. But it has no bearing on GNG, and it's wrong to assume that they are publishing bias about minor foreign athletes. There was nothing published there that doesn't jibe with many other sources. Vietnam has been a relatively stable country for years, since they rid themselves of various colonial powers; do we ignore sports media from other similar, but friendly countries, like Cuba? Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about Indonesian government control of the media, so I'm just taking what has been said to be true here.
    The problem is that this means the sources are not intellectually independent of one another, which is necessary to establish notability. Again, independence from the subject is clear and the coverage does go significantly beyond routine coverage, so YOUNGATH does not seem to be a problem to me. But if all our sources are under control of the same government, they're not intellectually independent. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Timothy's analysis above. Quite simply, the sources in the article at present are not sufficient to construct any sort of meaningful article on this subject, several are primary and others are too short.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:23, 31 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santiago_Rublico&oldid=1157901523"