Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mate Colina

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Colina

[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)

Apparently never played a game in the AFL.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that's now irrelevant. What's your relevant reason for deletion? The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hard to achieve something per NSPORT and satisfy GNG if you don't play. Simply being the tallest player ever signed in the league isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. NSPORT, which is concerned with "playing", is no longer a valid guideline for Australian rules footballers. And plenty who "don't play" (in the AFL) meet GNG. Hence your nomination reasoning would've been acceptable 3 or 4 years ago, does not make any sense now. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources exist, but are all published around the same time in September. I don't think this meets notability standards based on WP:BLP1E. The rest are statistics pages that do not make up substantial coverage. -- Recon rabbit 18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom fails to raise a policy based argument for deletion. As an alternative one could Redirect to List of Richmond Football Club players#Other AFL-listed players. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just enough coverage for a stub. The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [2][3][4][5] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. I think this falls under WP:BLP1E – nearly all the quality coverage he received because he got drafted, but that didn't amount to much, so the one event was not significant. Of WikiOriginal-9's four sources, three are about him being drafted and originate from one week in Sept. 2020. The other one is an older 2018 piece that's basically an interview (not independent). Toadspike [Talk] 09:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how is an interview based article in a major newspaper not independent? Independence is related to ownership or a lack of editorial oversight, not just because the article quotes the subject. That's one of the strangest arguments I've ever seen and must be completely discounted by the AFD closer. The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 June 2025 (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.