Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Appleyard (2nd nomination)

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. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Appleyard[edit]

[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 WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT The sources in the article are either unreliable, mentions in passing, broken (and unobtainable from the Way Back Machine) or promotional in nature. The ESPN interview could be used to show notability, and I found a short profile of him from the Toronto Star on Jan. 1, 2003 in a ProQuest database but I can't find the article on TS's website (ProQuest's links reveal the library's location and I don't want to out myself). However, these two sources are not enough significant coverage to determine notability. I searched Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale for but did not find usable sources there. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a requirement that our sources be web-published at all — we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as archival news reporting retrieved from microfilm, clippings or locked research databases, without hotlinking them anywhere. But conversely, we can't stake notability on Q&A interviews where the person is speaking about themselves in the first person — we can use Q&A interviews sparingly for verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but interviews don't directly count as bringers of the GNG if they are the best sources he's got. But you are right that either way, two sources isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above comment, I realise I was not clear enough in my delete rationale. For the Toronto Star article, I was not trying to insinuate that we can't use the article because it's a print newspaper. Instead, I was describing where I found the article so others could find it themselves and access it to make their own judgements (and I didn't want to post a direct link because the URL reveals which city's library I used to find the article). In my analysis of the Toronto Star source, it is a short bio of Appleyard that doesn't establish notability. I am sorry for the confusion. Please ping me if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article depends far, far too strongly on primary sources, such as user-generated YouTube videos and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies he has direct endorsement deals with, and features almost no evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources — even the very few sources that are technically from real media are just blurbs, Q&As where he's talking about himself in the first person or glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, not genuinely substantive coverage about him — yet the article also claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough under our inclusion standards for sportspeople to exempt him from having to have significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (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.