Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilaix Moriba
definitely has a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so reaches . There are already several sources in the voice: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2859748-ilaix-moriba-the-pogba-of-barca-destined-for-greatness, https://www.mundodeportivo.com/futbol/fc-barcelona/cantera/20181218/453639791614/ilaix-moriba-renovacion-barcelona-futuro.html, https://guineefoot.info/nouveau-talent-a-quatorze-ans-moriba-kourouma-simpose-centre-de-formation-barca/, https://www.90min.com/fr/posts/6574525-ilaix-moriba-age-fifa-20-contrat-en-or-instagram-tout-savoir-sur-la-sensation-de-la-masia...  It is also quite easy to find other sources of the same type via a simple google search: https://www.goal.com/en/news/ilaix-moriba-barcelona-new-pogba-first-team-debut/vmj24zdzjc401g4rxl55vmzt9 Goal, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonpettigrove/2020/01/17/meet-ilaix-moriba-barcelonas-next-wunderkind/ Forbes, https://totalfootballanalysis.com/player-analysis/barcelona-illaix-moriba-tactical-analysis-statistics Total football analysis, https://www.90min.com/posts/6279948-5-things-to-know-about-barcelona-wonderkid-ilaix-moriba 90min. Plus I really don't see how having "less than 4k Google News hits" comes even close to |something that could be used as an argument here. A topic should be considered notable, even if there is only one really good source, as described in GNG. Also I don't think that the process that led to this AfD was quite appropriate: Ortizesp had tried to delete this article through a |PRD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilaix_Moriba&diff=955591415&oldid=955085694&diffmode=source one month ago, without notifying the author, and another user
— User:Cocô53, 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:PRD (Wikipedia:Notability)