Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie McSwain Jr.

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie McSwain Jr.[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage (simply routine) to pass WP:GNG, and meets neither WP:COLLATH or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If article needs to be worked on more and supplied better sources then perhaps it goes back to draft. Nowhere in the Proposed deletion protocols does this article warrant erasure. Youngjtdyt (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)<smalll> Strike sock !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your article was declined for submission multiple times then you decided to move it to main space without adding sources to establish notability. Maybe you should have left it as a draft. If you want it kept then go find more reliable sources. Rikster2 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn’t mean anything. My actions in moving the page do not change the deletion protocol. Sources or not, you need consensus and a reason other than you don’t like that I moved a page that others have declined. If you all feel it isn’t ready to be an article then it should be returned to draft, not deleted. I think he does meet WP:GNG and will add sources when I can. Deletion is an overreaction and if you’re abiding by the rules I’m not sure how you would justify it. Youngjtdyt (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing in a “deletion protocol” that says an article can’t be deleted if doesn’t pass WP:AfD. That’s what the process does. That said, “draftifying” articles is a possible outcome and most people would probably go along with it if it comes to that. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ doesn’t meet WP:NBASKETBALL and no sources indicate he meets WP:GNG yet. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changing vote due to new sources added. The Indianapolis Star, Wichita Eagle and South Bend Tribune sources suffice in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Action I have now updated the article and included 9 new sources. As it stands now, the subject meets WP:GNG. There are in-depth articles on him, providing significant and reliable coverage: Yahoo Sports, Indianapolis Star (x2), South Bend Tribune, The Wichita Eagle. There is a significant number of secondary and independent coverage as well. I look forward to further discussion. Youngjtdyt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck edit by sock (and page creator)—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Context for those !voting or closing The article creator is a sock [1] [2] suspected of paid editing / COI. See edit history at Draft:Trace Cureton. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was tagged under CSD:G5; I have declined the speedy deletion as there is insufficient evidence available to me that the creator is indeed a sock of Inspiralens. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update - the creator's request to unblock as been denied, see User talk:Youngjtdyt#Blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notwithstanding issues with article creator, sources need further analysis per Rikster2's !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the creator might be a sock, the article still passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the assertion of meeting some notability guideline contributes to a consensus because presumably the participant has done some analysis themselves, giving the analysis itself will help a lot more as it can be evaluated more fully than an assertion.

Relisting again to see if there will be more participants or a convincing argument will be made.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to write a substantial article per WP:WHYN. The article is mostly composed of redundant seasonal stat lines and a resume of his pro team transactions. A bulk of the content is just dependent team site and state site scraping, unlikely to be found in independent coverage. Then there's unreliable fan blogs like SB Nation and SI's rebranded Fannation (who are not SI employees (i.e. no oversight))—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the reliable sourcing is a tad too thin to establish a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2021 (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.