Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Peltier

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!} 07:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Peltier[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:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found mentions here, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Contender for Sportsman of the year. [5]. Those are just some google results. There maybe better sourcing locally for him. But it appears to be a bit of notability from google and that's just google. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs found, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Das osmnezz and Ortizesp: I never said to keep the article, I was just providing what I found and too me it wasn't enough. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references above seemed rather trivial and routine to me, so I looked for more. I searched Dominican News Online and Sun Dominica and, Dominica Times . There were some mentions, and I only read the ones that looked most promising, but I found nothing that would make me believe the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Jacona (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and sources above to me aren't reliable. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Govvy's evidence. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BoyTheKingCanDance, I'm a bit confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with Govvy? They provided some links to sources, but said it was not enough for the article should be kept. — Jacona (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacona: I thought that the links Govvy provided were enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacona: I don't know! Sometimes these things turn into a catch-22! Govvy (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is going on here?? Nothing remotely approaching SIGCOV has been provided -- just pure trivial mentions, some of which are from clearly non-independent sources. 1: literally only contains "Randolph Peltier getting the equalizer for South East" and is from the governing football org, N. 2 and 3 are passing mentions in another governing sports org, N. 4 is just two sentences in a routine match recap, N. 5 is just his name listed in an announcement, N. Come on, guys. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources that could count towards WP:GNG have been identified. Being mentioned once or twice in a match report produced by a football association just doesn't cut it any more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Online coverage is trivial (he was one of 38 people nominated for a sportsman of the year award, but the article literally just drops his name in a list without any context or prose about his achievements) and article clearly fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (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.