Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tevin Slater

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 no consensus to delete. Participation in the discussion is leaning closer to a "keep" outcome than a "delete" outcome, and the sources cited in support of this outcome are not clearly barred for this purpose. BD2412 T 00:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tevin Slater

[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) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am seeing significant coverage, for example here and [1].@GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough for me I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 06:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per Ortizesp (also see below). Also, he has ongoing international career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that iwnsvg.com story is a promo for football awards, it is a story about him being named Senior Football of the Year by the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Football Federation. Him winning the award is also covered in a story in Searchlight.vc. Besides these two articles, the best I could find is a story from The Vincentian about his goal scoring prowness in recent national team matches. However, all three sources are from the span of July-September 2015 so they aren't exactly WP:SUSTAINED coverage so in my opinion additional SIGCOV is needed. Alvaldi (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep with Alvaldi's added sources. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep with Alvaldi's added sources. Helps with the notability of the article. Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep feels subject scrapes though WP:GNG.Subject has ongoing international career see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having an "international career" means nothing on Wikipedia. Our notability standards are not based on stuff like that. Of the sources listed here and on the article, one source doesn't mention Slater, one is a passing mentions, one is a Facebook link (WP:SPS), two are databases, and two are routine event coverages. That leaves four sources that could confer notability (1, 2, 3, 4), but together they do not meet the bar of notability. SWinxy (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find that the sources SWinxy lists barely meet WP:SIGCOV; they are sufficient to support a reliable albeit short article on the subject. The fact that they span a period of three years makes me think WP:SUSTAINED is satisfied (barely). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:36, 17 April 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.