Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laupama Elu

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. ✗plicit 00:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laupama Elu

[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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 21:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played football at an international level. Just because we can’t find anything online does not mean sources do not exist. This is especially true of a country of population 11,000 with no online news site and which is best known for selling internet domains because they presumably publish their sources offline (I’m 99% sure sources do exist offline). 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... which, of course, does not matter. Sources cannot be theorized to maybe, possibly exist. They must be demonstrated to exist. Either produce them or admit you cannot. Ravenswing 18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - now that WP:NFOOTBALL is defunct, simply having caps is not enough to sustain a stand-alone article on its own. We create articles from evidence of notability not on a presumption that sourcing must exist because of x, y or z. If sourcing cannot be provided, then it's clear that we must delete this article until such time that someone can provide the alleged sourcing, at which point we can create this again. I have searched in multiple search engines and ProQuest and couldn't find any decent WP:RS on Elu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 29 May 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.