Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Condon

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 Speedy Keep. withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Condon[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)

unnotable, BLP issues, lack of sources Ed6767 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did you do the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE? If you did you would see that the subject easily meets the subject-specific notability guidelines and would have found numerous sources exist. Jevansen (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep a 10-year, 145-game player who played in two premierships at the highest level of Australian rules football very clearly passes WP:NAFL. This AfD reflects poorly on the nominator's diligence. – Teratix ₵ 08:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix, thank you for your kind comments - I'm still fairly new to AfD, this nomination was my mistake here. I 'm sorry I've only just got the chance to re-review my AfDs and have retracted my original nomination. Ed6767 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Teratix. Cavalryman (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Was surprised this article was in this state, less surprised decent articles on Condon were hard to find on the internet given the years in which he played for the Hawks. Easily passes WP:NAFL and clearly notable. It was sourced, but only to directory websites, so I've quickly added two more - neither are great, it's an article from the Hawthorn website, but it's impossible he's not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - on further review, I am retracting my original nomination for deletion. Ed6767 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 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.