Hayato Nishinoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only played 2 minutes in Japan's third league, which is very far from notable. Article has been expanded but I don't believe the coverage meets WP:SIGCOV, which I will outline here. Source assessment:

1. The longest, but I believe it is not secondary. It has wording like ""During my university days, I worked part-time"
2. Primary source
3. Primary source
4. Primary source
5. Very short, not significant
6. Literally one sentence, not significant
7. Don't think this is very significant either, describes the game on an amateur level
8. Not about him, WP:PASSING
9. Database
10. Database
11. Database Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Re your own source assessment. The first source is a LONG profile on him, and is definitely a secondary source, the “I” in the automatic translation is reported speech from inside quotes given to the journalist as part of the article (which is not an interview either, those are specific quotations, not part of a longer question and answer session/transcript). The seventh source is likewise a two page profile specifically on him (not sure if you noticed that was page 2 of two, separated by hyperlinks at the bottom of the page), whether you think the intellectual standard of the analysis in the article is up to snuff, the article itself is inarguably a SIGCOV worthy source, being an independent secondary source focused solely on the subject of the article. This[1] source looks likely to be significant too, being billed as a serialised special feature on those three players specifically… though I can’t get through the paywall to be 100% sure. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Absurdum4242's analysis of sources showing that he meets the standard requiring significant coverage from multiple outlets. DCsansei (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per sources provided by Absurdum4242. Svartner (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete—Too many paywalls and not enough clarity to establish WP:SIGCOV firmly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]