Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Pupi

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!} 04:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pupi

[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) 23:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources have been added to the page as the article has been improved to conform with WP:SPORTBASIC. @GiantSnowman:. Franklin Darrk (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All sources add fail WP:GNG and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Thus meeting some criteria of WP:GNG. Franklin Darrk (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they are definitely not significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the sources added are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Giant Snowman 20:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources found and those added do not address Pupi in detail, therefore GNG is not met Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason to keep Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MERCY, people can always use user space if they want to work on the article without it getting deleted. This has been in mainspace for 7 years with no GNG evidence being provided, it's not as if people haven't had sufficient time to flesh out the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources in the article and that could be found from a search consist only of passing mentions and database listings, not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:31, 22 July 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.