Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iduitua David

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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iduitua David

[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)

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 16 minutes in the league and 8 minutes in the cup. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Portuguese/Nigerian sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is too soon, might be suitable wiki in the nearest future, but as of now it should be deleted Oloriebi 18:39, 12 November 2021 (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.