Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Dammann

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. Davewild (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nate Dammann

Nate Dammann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Dammann doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Has earned numerous extensive write ups and profiles. Passes GNG. [1][2][3][4] Alex (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  Comment "Numerous and extensive writeups and profiles..." Ok, so the first two articles you linked might meet that description. The third is anything but extensive and the fourth is basically just a redirect back to the second. Do you have anything else? If a 2010s sports figure is truly notable, I'd expect more than two articles. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Alex - Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  Two articles is sufficient to pass GNG? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No kidding. The two legitimate links above don't come close to passing GNG. I wish more of the people from the notability discussion participated in these AfDs, but I understand why they don't. Dealing with Alex's nonsense gets old in a hurry. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Mellowed Fillmore, Bbny-wiki-editor - My bad I assumed the links were fine...., Turns out they don't even come close to GNG at all. –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [5], [6], [7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The standard is GNG, and this guy fails it. Three local stories aren't "significant coverage" by any reasonable definition. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Fox Sports North, publisher of the first source I posted above, is a regional sports network television channel that "is available on cable providers throughout Minnesota, western Wisconsin, northern Iowa, Upper Michigan along the Wisconsin border and the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota". It's unclear if their written news articles have the same reach. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, the sources provided don't constitute passing GNG. Wizardman 22:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete sources too local for WP:GNG 2601:3:2C80:3B00:C573:9698:D337:9130 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks the significant coverage in multiple sources required by GNG and bullpen catchers are not inherently notable. Coverage appears to primarily be local or school. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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.