Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Powers (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Powers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the coverage of him as a player or as a coach rises to the level of notability and passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to find notability guidelines for radio broadcasters/sports broadcasters, but found no guidance. There are 7 listed "Boston College Eagles football broadcasters", although each one has more on his resume than Andy Powers. I did find that he has done color commentary for BC hockey for several years now, so I think it might be appropriate to rewrite the article to focus on that rather than delete. Bill McKenna (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed, there are no notability guidelines covering sports broadcasters, which would mean that they'd stand and fall on the GNG. The subject doesn't meet it, and our standard practice is certainly not to keep an article just because there aren't any SNGs bearing on the subject. Ravenswing 22:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as far as I can find. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (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.