Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lashley

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!} 22:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Lashley

[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. All sources currently on article and a search on Google are of a trivial nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check this source out if this is a concern! I have updated the article on this emergency basis. https://www.nationnews.com/2019/11/19/barbados-beat-cayman-to-gain-concacaf-promotion/ Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand the guidelines for association football players had been removed, even if the sources doesn't appear to meet the GNG, they shouldn't undermine the sources as he led the team to promotion to league B. Ivan Milenin (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV has been found. One sentence in a 4-sentence blurb obviously does not contribute toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sentence for that statement? Ivan Milenin (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Armando Lashley netted in the 86th and Hope grabbed his second a minute from time." JoelleJay (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage, looks like they cover GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suspect that the above commenter has only glanced at the number of sources rather than actually reading them, as not a single one has any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the SIGCOV met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we are basing this purely off the WP:SIGCOV requirement, then this clearly falls short. Doesn't even pass the lower bar of WP:SPORTCRIT point 5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points made about WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, nothing on Google to support inclusion on Wikipedia, to the degree that is required to pass WP:GNG or lighter requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 15:37, 5 June 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.