Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Kennedy (rugby union)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. BD2412 T 03:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Kennedy (rugby union)[edit]

Jonny Kennedy (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, even by the somewhat more lax standards of the old WP:NSPORT (and definitely not by the new). Not seeing any significant coverage other than a few things about his vitamin company. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, England, and Scotland. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be GNG coverage of his business career here, and there is some sourcing that would likely pass GNG on his rugby career as well. Article obviously needs improving, and perhaps should be more evenly split to his business side now, but I think there's enough out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Can't really find much about his career due to early retirement. Played for Scotland U20 and under two dozen matches for Sale. Not sure if his vitamin business is enough for significance, but article badly needs updating if it stays. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. BLP, bails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are stats, a routine sports news about contract signing, and an interview, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep vote above found no sources during their BEFORE so there is nothing else to eval. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  18:47, 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.