Deletion of Conor Hearn

Comment: Fails |"Basic criteria" (''"A person is ''presumed'' to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."'') of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) so obviously would fail WP:GNG.  appears (or is sometimes argued) to give a lessor notability requirement, with a ''presumption'' (presumed notable) but #1 states: "The notability of these is accepted ''as they would have received significant coverage'' as outlined above in the general notability criteria.", If this does not hold up to scrutiny then it would defer to the general notability criteria so is not in conflict.  (Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "...so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". A "presumption" does not equate to nherent notability|inherent or even |de facto notability (both a form of intrinsic notability), but still relies on the availability of |significant coverage, and I can't see anyone legitimately arguing this to mean "no" or even "one" source. I feel it is hard not to run afoul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not (a policy) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view (also a policy and part of the |Five pillars) if we settle for anything less than Wikipedia:Notability|"worthy of notice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTCRIT||WP:NFOOTBALL||WP:SPORTSPERSON||WP:I||WP:DEFACTO||WP:SIGCOV||WP:5P2)

Comment: fails ; technically meets , but there is past consensus at AFD that failing GNG is more important
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFOOTBALL)