Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Fetoai

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The result was withdrawn‎ per WP:HEY. I'm not overly thrilled with the sources I can see (they're just interviews and stats) but the number of offline or subscriber-only sources do seem to indicate that there is enough coverage to merit an article. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Fetoai[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)

Barely any coverage that I can find, and thus fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, Australia, and New Zealand. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The crusade against sports continues while others skate by with a free pass. Are we going to see the same standards applied to academics and artists or are they worthy pursuits unlike the undignified practice of grown men chasing around after a ball. I've expanded the article to include coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sigh This is not a "crusade against sports". I came across the article, found no significant coverage, and nominated it for deletion. I would do the same if I came across an academic or an artist whose article was in a similar shape. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think enough has been found here to suggest a GNG pass for him. I imagine there will be more coverage out there if a further detailed search through Australian archives is done. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick ProQuest search results in 645 entries, so there's more than enough to justify WP:GNG, with references already in the article and the additional info here [1] and here [2], an editor interested in this subject could expand this one out to be a better stub. Storm machine (talk) 00:51, 25 May 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.