Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hodge


 * 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 keep. Consensus that subject passes GNG, which overrides SNGs. ansh 666 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cliff Hodge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Hodge passes GNG, which overrules him not passing NHOOPS. PBA players get a lot of coverage from the local media., , , , , . I just want to note that all but a few of PBA players fail NHOOPS because local players don't enter the NBA draft, which makes them impossible to be drafted. Unless they're some kind of very young local superstar, Filipino basketball players play their whole career in the PBA since they have no chance in playing in the NBA (or in European leagues). So they fail NHOOPS, but they definitely pass GNG. Merry Christmas! Baby miss fortune 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The biggest problem is that no sources exist on the article. If you add some demonstrating that the player meets GNG it would help. I believe you that he meets GNG, but we can’t have unsourced articles out there. Rikster2 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lots of coverage in reliable sources, like Spin.ph and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The nominator should have checked for sources first to see if at the very least WP:GNG was met. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete When someone is only notable as a sports figure, it is the sports notability guidelines and not GNG that is the controling one. So in this case we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but our notability guidelines do say that as long as there is sufficient coverage for the person, the person is notable. WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT complement, not supplement each other. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, for people known only for being sportspeople, the specific sports guidelines trump the general notability guidlines. If GNG was the controlling issue in all cases, then it would be the only thing needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is NOT true - If a subject meets GNG it does not matter if they meet the sport guideline. As someone who has contributed to the basketball guideline I can tell you that it would included many, many more leagues if it were the final word on which players are notable. We assumed that GNG would catch any players not covered in the relatively few leagues covered in WP:NBASKETBALL. The sport guidelines exist to make it easier for non-experts to gauge who likely meets GNG and who does not. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT it says “The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.” Rikster2 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient, contrary to 's ridiculous assertion to the contrary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My assertion is not rediculous, if you are going to ignore subject specific guidelines and then use lowest minimum GNG to pass an article, we should just scrap subject specific guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2017 (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.