Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariatu Candé

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. There is unanimous consensus here among participants other than nominator that the subject meets GNG and as such is notable. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariatu Candé

[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. Sources in the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], among many many other sources. Clearly significant figure in Guinea-Bissau women's football, one of the sources above even dubbed her the "Frank Lampard of Guinea-Bissau" and another dubbed her "undoubtedly an example to follow (for Bissau-Guineans)", probably best ever player, with by far most coverage and one of few to ever play abroad. Also, having started her career in early to mid 2000s, there is most likely offline coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth and fifth posts are from Facebook/Youtube (interview) and can be ruled out as unreliable. The first source appears to be a transcript? of the fifth Youtube link. Interviews are not independent of the subject. The second source relies on quotes from the subject, which is not independent of the subject. The third source barely passes the threshold here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I compared the first source text to the fifth source transcript and found that the first source is not a transcript of the fifth source. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first 3 sources that Das has found seem good enough to meet GNG. There is enough content aside from just quotes to meet what I would call 'significant'. It's certainly more than trivial coverage and the sources seem to be reliable and independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG based on references whih have been found. Bruxton (talk) 18:50, 8 September 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.