Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Blanco

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 speedy deleted by Justlettersandnumbers per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Blanco

[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 in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite never playing in WP:FPL, the subject passes GNG as there are multiple SIGCOV from secondary sources. Just search for the name on Google. Notadogbutafish (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Java Hurricane 06:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with Notadogbutafish. There is enormous media coverage about him. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To show notability, you need in-depth coverage from at least 3 independent reliable sources. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and we can also consider WP:VERIFY which is also an important concept. PreppyElephant (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been presented to support the assertion that this meets GNG. The first three sources in the article are databases (not SIGCOV), and judging from what can be gleaned from the rest of the article's content, they don't appear to be more than routine, run-of-the-mill sports coverage. Playing for a reserve team isn't a particularly good reason to ignore this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such per WP:G5. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Notadogbutafish. Passes WP:GNG, Many sources available. VincentGod11 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets GNG, then please provide WP:THREE sources to support this. Unsupported assertions are entirely unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(following part of discussion removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 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.