Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Rogers

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rogers[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)

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Rogers and not brief mentions. Starting to wonder if you are proposing the deletion of a whole squad, if so I do wonder what is going on here. Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Large numbers of articles were created under the basis that they passed WP:NRU (Major League Rugby was added with no discussion before being removed), and so pages have been created that are not notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no independent significant coverage there, and the level within the sport is too low. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. No news hits and only covered in WP:ROUTINE transactions or list-based mentions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of routine coverage which does not amount to passing GNG Spiderone 11:34, 25 November 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.