Christian Nanetti: I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable  – per WP:GNG , as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete.  The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply.  Complex / Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] among many more English and Italian sources.  Clearly siginifciant figure in English lower league football with extnsive career.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of these sources, The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable (deprecated, as documented at WP:RS/PS ), and several others are blogs/tabloids which have similar shortcomings.  Is there anything in more reputed sources such as BBC , Sky News , The Guardian , etc.?  Complex / Rational 20:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV  , 2. per WP:THESUN , The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability,  3. very short, mostly quotes  4. short, mostly quotes,  5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"? ,  6. very short, mostly quotes,  7. short, mostly quotes,  8. one sentence mentions him,  9. per WP:DAILYMAIL , The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability.  So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV.  Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports.  Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Das osmnezz .  Svartner ( talk ) 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports.  Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything.  Giant Snowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , Even besides that, my other points still stand.  Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I reviewed your sources prior to my ! vote and nothing has changed my mind since.  Giant Snowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports.  Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG.  Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports.  Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - my stance hasn't changed since my original source analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti .  I'm not convinced that any of the new sources in this discussion address the previous reasons for deletion.  Those that offer more than trivial coverage are of questionable reliability as addressed several times above; The Sun , Daily Mail and Wordpress are not acceptable sources for BLPs and do not confer notability in any case.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG with significant coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —Definitely enough to pass WP:GNG .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:42, 28 May 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: delete