- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Alemais (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)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Hatman, seems like sufficient sources are available to satisfy the GNG. -71.112.157.133 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable player with only local coverage, besides articles listing draft picks where he's mentioned. That is not "significant coverage". JimKaatFan (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get this argument, given that these newspapers are based in three different locations. Besides, WP:SIGCOV doesn't say anything about "local coverage", and neither does WP:NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets GNG per Hatman31. Locality of coverage is irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2022 (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.