Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Kwenkeu

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Kwenkeu[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:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. There is some coverage, such as this from The Philadelphia Inquirer; and this and this from The Washington Post, but that's all I could find. That may be enough to just get by GNG, although it may be better to draftify until he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources BeanieFan11 brought up are close to meeting WP:GNG, and I don't think it would be draftified for long. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mainly based on the articles posted by BeanieFan11, but also due to this from the Star Tribune and this from Sports Illustrated. Hatman31 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, at this stage it fails to satisfy WP:SPORTSBASIC. If he gets an actual NFL game then that would just tip the scale but at the moment all I am seeing is listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are more sources than just those frmo BeanieFan11 and Hatman31 - for example this from the Atlanta Constitution and this from the Star Tribune. Easily passes GNG and SPORTSBASIC is irrelevant if the subject passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 13 October 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.