Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hall

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Hall

[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 notability. No significant secondary source coverage. WP:SPORTCRIT — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, nominator has clearly not done a BEFORE search given that a Google search for 'Jordon hall melbourne' brings back this on page 1 alone. Giant Snowman 19:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. "The Football Sack is a volunteer-based website. All views and opinions expressed are those of the individuals who have written them". Even if it's reliable articles need multiple sources of sigcov to pass GNG which Hall lacks. Dougal18 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how one gets GNG out of a mostly-interview article by an unpaid amateur sports writer... JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTBALL. Potential to pass GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALL doesn’t exist as a specific set of criteria. It points to Wikipedia:SPORTCRIT. Does he pass that set of criteria? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:23, 30 May 2022 (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)} 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, this discussion is basically 50/50 on "does" or "doesn't" meet GNG. It can't be both. We need more than mere assertions to break this logjam or it will close as "No consensus". Specifics would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. The articles on The Football Sack appear to written by interns without oversight; WP:SPS apply, and because this is a WP:BLP, and because the authors are not WP:SME, the articles do not count towards notability. No other possible WP:SIGCOV has been found, and so deletion is the best option, although draftification is an option as they may become notable in the future. A redirect is not suitable, as there are many other non-notable Jordon Hall's mentioned on Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since there's no automatic assumption of notability, I'm looking at the sources, which are thin. The one longer piece doesn't really have much biographical info besides his joining the team. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking indepth coverage of him as a person, thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 14 June 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.