Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Cordeiro

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cordeiro

[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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG - coverage seems trivial, brief career, spell in DC United only yielded 205 minutes of playing time. May be redirected to All-time D.C. United roster. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage, see e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. At most it should be redirected. Giant Snowman 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per new sources presented by GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. The sources presented by GiantSnowman are routine transfer announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you clearly haven't read the sources. For example, this is a profile of him when he was a college student, talking about his ambitions. Giant Snowman 19:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time D.C. United roster: Coverage does not meet WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG Demt1298 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage found by GiantSnowman is clearly enough for an article. As an example, calling the first article a "routine transfer announcement" is disingenuous - it's clearly a feature article directly written on him. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just disingenuous, it's plainly inaccurate, and shows that people haven't actually read the sources. Giant Snowman 09:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the articles and they don't show any evidence of accomplishments as much as what he might be capable of doing in the MLS. I don't believe because he had potential that it meets significance. I believe the fact that none of the articles show how the potential turned into actual meaningful contribution at the professional level fails to meet notability. In addition, during the review I did not see multiple sources as much as one source covering a local potential professional athlete. Demt1298 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to have any "accomplishments" - you just need to be the subject of significant coverage, and at least TWO of those articles would class as SIGCOV. As such, he is notable. Giant Snowman 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person covered by correct sources, the article should be kept SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly satisfies GNG with multiple examples of SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies the criterion set forth in WP:GNG. At least two of the sources substantiate and pass SIGCOV, which indicates that this article meets notability requirements. DocZach (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2024 (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.