Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Layland


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Layland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N. A single Google News search result for "Christian Layland" in the context of the claimed notability and a majority of secondary sources are links from the subject's own blog. Appears to be WP:SPIP - creator username appears to be that of the subject. Further fails criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER (no significant roles, no indication of large fanbase, no unique contributions to a field), and I can't see how the subject might meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST or the other notability requirements. Tiredgrad (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, I wasn't able to turn up much on this person, not enough to suggest they'd meet the WP:GNG. I would suggest redirecting to The Football Sack, but I'm not sure how notable that is either; apart from a couple of brief mentions in reliable media most of the stuff I found on that was self-promotion as well.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, The subject of the article barely meets WP:GNG but does meet it.206.82.167.147 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find enough secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, cover the subject in-depth, and enough of these sources to assert that significant coverage exists. These are required in order for GNG to be met, which is not so. Hence, I am voting delete.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * delete clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (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.