Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Otter (2nd nomination)


 * 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! 23:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Dan Otter
AfDs for this article:


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

Lack of reliable, independent and significant sources, thus no GNG pass. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOX either. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Turns out that this has been deleted before with two AfD's: September 2020, February 2021. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the 2017 piece in the Hamilton Spectator that is already referenced in the article is significant. And here's another from 2020. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage in The Spec is significant, but WP:GNG states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. We would need two more examples of significant coverage from different organizations to meet the requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing to show he is unusually notable for a boxing promoter. Of course he's mentioned in articles on events he's promoting, but that's not significant independent coverage.  As BilledMammal mentions, multiple mentions in the Hamilton Spectator, even if you believe they're significant coverage, only count as one source.  Two previous deletions do not strengthen the case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the indepedent sources from each other point in the GNG formula is not met enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing the sources. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sigcov in multiple RS.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:58, 13 March 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.