Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Ettienne


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Ettienne

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep played in the Gold Cup, and I think through that tournament got enough coverage to pass GNG. And I think one of the articles surrounding his transfer to Charleston Battery offers more than routine coverage and highlights some of his info such as this and this. Tournament coverage 1, 2.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment FOOTBALL is ancient history. It's time to let it go. Taking part in a notable event does not confer automatic notability on the participants. Source 1 is routine coverage of a transfer. Even worse it's a copy and paste of the story from the Battery's website. The source includes info on season membership of Charleston Battery which is strange for a Grenadian website. Source 2 is from the USL which isn't independent of Ettienne. Source 3 is a live blog of a match and therefore unusable. Source 4 is a namedrop. Dougal18 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your premise, and your analysis. I think playing in a noteable tournament makes you noteable despite consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't we here to make policy-based arguments, rather than !voting based on what we personally think is notable? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is you're going to keep wasting everyone's time with these useless anti-consensus !votes that closers ignore just to make a point? JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Per . He is a young pro and internationally capped player with an ongoing career with some sources already and one of few Grenadians ever to play in the United States and outside the Caribbean. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. I can find nothing in various sources. Daz osmnezz and Ortizesp have not made policy-based arguments for keep. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No GNG coverage has been found; the two sources offered above are an obvious press release and hype from a non-independent org. It's alarming how many delete !votes are necessary to oppose a bloc of NOTHERE tendentious editors whose !votes should just be disregarded outright. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - young, international, ongoing career... irrelevant. What matters is significant coverage, which is sorely lacking. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.