Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Parrish


 * 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. Personally I would think that Editorofthewiki's additional sources push this over the threshold of notability, but my personal opinion doesn't matter here; the consensus is in favour of deletion at this time. Yunshui 雲 水 10:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Brandon Parrish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, or WP:NCOLLATH.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Player is not notable enough, checked over the WPs as well.  dibbydib 💬/✏   22:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage in reliable sources       ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle  (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable basketball player. I dont see him deserves an article in Wiki for now - Jay (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough significant coverage per WP:GNG. Doing a search on sources, including those listed above, there seems to be bits of info in multiple sources, but nothing substantial to support an article. Per WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Resorting to game-by-game logs or "crocodile hunter" tidbits would get into WP:NOTDIARY.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't think the conservation part of him is important? All the sources I used were relatively indepth. I didn't even use any game logs, which would give even more info. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 23:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you didn't provide an explanation to counter the policies and guidelines that I cited.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2019 (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.