Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Julius

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DonFB (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Julius[edit]

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

His eating disorder hoisted him a little above the routine. But I think it's probably insufficient to justify an article. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:DonFB is the editor who nominated the article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, I'm new and I don't understand how this works, but is there a way to include this in some sort of addiction area, not just sports? Thanks The Kingfisher (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a program that makes sorting discussions into dedicated topical lists a lot faster, and having checked again - because "addiction" was not a key word that came to mind as I was looking for categories to sort this discussion - I can't find such a list. However, listing discussions the way that I do it, and the way that others do it, does not mean we're listing them in WikiProject areas; it merely means these discussions are being reposted into pages that are just reorganized versions of the main AFD page, with only certain discussions included. I recommend finding addiction-related WikiProjects and leaving a note that this discussion is going on & that you would like others to provide input. Cheers! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like a Talk page of an addiction subject? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should say a page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Addictions and recovery. Whether this article fully fits the bill as one within the scope of that project, I cannot say; all I am doing is providing tips when asked. From there, you might be able to find other pages to post to. I recommend keeping it simple and only posting to a few - three, tops; that should be sufficient to get people aware of this discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there a template that I should use? The Kingfisher (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you really have to do is just post that this discussion is going on. Be sure to include a link to this discussion, of course. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get to this until tomorrow, but I will outline with dozens of internationally respected reliable sources, as to why the article should stay from two points: sports and eating disorder. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The editor who nominated this AFD did not give any policy violations. The reason is because there weren't any. This article meets all Wikipedia new article criteria, specifically WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. The article would have been borderline, had it been simply about Joey Julius the football player. However, following the uniqueness of his eating disorder revelation, along with the international news that followed, it more than surpasses all required policy for a new article. User:DonFB's only argument for nominating this AFD was, "I think it's probably insufficient to justify an article". I think that an editor who nominates an AFD should do more than simply slap a template on an article, and at least bring one policy violation. The Kingfisher (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I myself have no opinion on whether the article should stay or go. We tend to sort all AFD discussions regardless of whether articles get thrown out. Good luck! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:50, 9 January 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.