Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobbie Nice

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. Consensus is that the subject of this article does not meet WP:BIO. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie Nice[edit]

Seemingly non-notable softball player. Google search for "Bobbie Nice" + softball yields only one non-Wikipedia mention, which is a list of Senior Softball teams and players. Gr1st (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this player has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any reason to support notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO criteria for amateur athletes: "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" This man has been named to All-World Teams by the top amateur senior softball league in the country [1]. The article needs much clean up and wikifying, but that should have no bearing on the person's notability. On a side note, I see no reason why this was included in the baseball related deletion discussions as this has to do with a softball player. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The criterion in WP:BIO refers to "the highest level in amateur sports," not "the highest level in amatuer sports for the person's age bracket." Play in a senior league isn't relevant to meeting this standard. BRMo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per lack of non-trivial sources to establish notability. The article appears to be either a vanity page or a joke. BRMo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (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.