Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Palazzo

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!} 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Palazzo

[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 is a footballer with just two seasons of experience in the lower ranks professional football. He fails

WP:SIGCOV ([1]), all sources in the article are non-independent (transfer reports from his clubs at the time, and name mentions from Football League reports). I could not find anything relevant or even close to noteworthy by searching for the subject around the Web. Angelo (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From my view, the general criteria is fine for GNG, there is just enough for me. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. The only independent source currently in the article (notiziariocalcio.com) isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, Does indeed fail GNG per nom, but I tend to try and not side with deletionist thinking and aim to keep when possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above - sources not showing in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:31, 20 November 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.