Arjun Tudu : Coderzombie ( talk ) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  Coderzombie ( talk ) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom and per WP:BIO .  The subject does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.  Poor sources with no WP:SIGCOV .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion.  If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review.  Waqar 💬 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ RangersRus : , @ Iwaqarhashmi : , I found [29] , [30] , [31] , [ [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages.  Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Das osmnezz ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD .  [ reply ] Most of these sources are interviews and paid promotions and do not help pass WP:NFOOTY .  The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG .  He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant  achievements.  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC) ' [ reply ] ALl of the sources have tons of secondary coverage that I will gladly cite if asked and there is no indication that any of them are paid promotions... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't appear to have ever played in a notable league BFC Aspie ( talk ) 17:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —I wanted to vote the opposite way, because this article is absolutely atrocious in its current state, but there is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - To the closer, all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cleary was significant figure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "called up to the senior India national team" is not notability. If he played for national team, that would be something to consider. If he was just called up then it is also case of WP:TOOSOON . RangersRus ( talk ) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thats one of my more minor points, my point is that he was considered such a good player and significant figure  in Indian lower leagues that he was called up to senior nationl team. This proves my point that all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said has to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am saying he passes neither. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't played professional football and the sources that exist don't justify WP:GNG Coderzombie ( talk ) 09:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tell me how this article doesnt meet WP:GNG. Im listening... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest  in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team.. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Arjun Tudu's page should be deleted because he doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the  notability standards. Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 14:00, 05 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - to the closer, nobody has explained how he doesnt pass WP:GNG which he clarly does... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These are excellent references. The article is crap, but the subject clearly meets GNG. The previous deletion discussion years ago is irrelevant, given the amount of media coverage is major national papers since then. The GNG policy clearly supports keeping. I don't see what policy supports deletion. Nfitz ( talk ) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the comment about him being an "upcoming player" is nonsense as the subject is 34 years old. Per Das osmnezz and Nfitz, I cannot see any policy-based arguments for deletion here.  The sources mentioned in this discussion would help the development of the article, but coupled with what is already in place there, they appear to establish a sufficient level of notability. C 679 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:SIGCOV . The article already contains a couple of reliable sources, it's easy to find more. Tau Corvi ( talk ) 20:58, 15 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep