Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishan Velupillay

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. This was relisted in error. I was looking at another AfD and clicked on the wrong page view. Apologies. Thanks for the catch @ Simione001 Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Velupillay

[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) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Young Australian footballer who won the FFA Cup in 2021 with Melbourne Victory. Article needs improving not deleting. Simione001 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even done a google search? There are many mentions of him this one being the most significant I could find without making much effort. [1] Simione001 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young player with ongoing professional career, subject to coverage such as 1, 2, 3. Giant Snowman 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. The Football Sack relies on a huge group of amateur "interns" for these articles, not professional journalists, with no evidence of editorial oversight. This is no better than a group blog and should be removed per BLP. 2. The FTBL article is a routine match recap with at most 3 sentences relevant to Velupillay; far from SIGCOV. 3. Ditto for Stadium Astro link. 4. The Daily Telegraph link requires me to change my browser settings to allow cookies, so I don't know what it says. But if it's another couple brief mentions then that too doesn't contribute to GNG. How many successful AfDs will it take before such clearly routine reports aren't proffered as "SIGCOV" anymore? JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne_Victory_FC#Players - fails WP:GNG per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE not correctly done in my opinion, vetting websites again above on a few links and not performing a google search yourself? News website 7news clear mentions him in their article about a Melbourne match and there are more like that if one goes looking. GNG, SIGCOV fail my ass. This guy clearly passes that. [2], multiple sources to be found, I can't be bothered to go through the rest. Govvy (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is identical to the FTBL article, which, again, is routine match reporting explicitly excluded by SPORTCRIT. Your second link is not independent (match coverage from the opponent team) and also only has two brief mentions of Velupillay in a routine recap. Do you only look at the headlines and total article length or something?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And who says I didn't do my own search? Google News had literally nothing more significant beyond what was already mentioned, and the first three pages of regular Google returned exclusively database junk and wiki mirrors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, he is young footballer with an ongoing career in a fully pro league (24 appearances). Not only does she have sources as well, when you put his name in Google search (e.g. Nishan Velupillay) there are a ton of search suggestions (e.g. "Nishan Velupillay family" and "Nisgan Velupillay malaysia"), which indicates he is known enough in Australia (and probably other countries). Lastly, this additional source shows how he is seen as a rising star and he won his club's Young Player of the Year Award, which is pretty significant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz, which sources do you believe contribute to GNG? Nothing else you said is compliant with the P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit your comment after others have replied to it. And I don't see anything SIGCOV in the new link, unless you mean the two sentences accompanying his name on a list? It doesn't matter how popular he appears to you, all that matters is whether there is currently coverage in significant detail, and that has not been demonstrated. If it was valid to cobble together a biography out of small bites of info from different sources, we would have articles on every middle school coach and town councilperson in America. And if an editor's opinion that a subject "seems famous" based on their subjective evaluation of a source was acceptable evidence of notability, we would have articles on leaders of every niche hobby. But Wikipedia is explicitly not an indiscriminate collection of verifiable factoids that are interesting to some people, it is an encyclopedia, so we have to rely on existence of comprehensive secondary coverage to meet notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is this being relisted? Seems a consensus has been reached. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001:, I agree, I feel like articles (at least the ones I see) only get relisted if the consensus is to keep and not the other way round. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 15:22, 21 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.