Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurimas Vertelis (2nd nomination)

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. Wizardman 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurimas Vertelis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the content was this article was significantly different from the last version. However, he has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The player still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. The Lithuanian league is not a fully-pro league based on WP:FPL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsure how 24 words of prose can be significantly different from the version deleted before, but the article should be deleted for the same reasons mentioned in the previous AfD as there is still no indication of sufficient notability. C 679 11:04, 14 January 2014 (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.