Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Edwards (basketball)


 * 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. There is consensus here to delete. (It would also qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G5, as the article was created by a block-evading editor, with no contributions from anyone else except correcting a couple of links and nominating for deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

David Edwards (basketball)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deprodded with the following rationale: " Inidividual is independently covered, 2nd place for Francis Pomeroy Naismith award passes WP:NCOLLATH". However, that is not what WP:NCOLLATH says, it clearly says "Have won a national award" (my emphasis). Other than that, this is borderline, but not, imo, notable.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is rare to find a sportsperson that fails our super-inclusive notability criteria for that profession, but as the nom notes, this one does fail it. So - delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in multiple sources including  Passes WP:NCOLLATH  via being second place for a major award NCAA Award the Francis Pomeroy Naismith  and Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.  Covered in the Washington Post  Times Ledger   and the NY Times   .  Easily passes GNG BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the coverage of his basketball career is not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The WP:GNG argument isn't addressed in the existing comments supporting deletion. T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not pass GNG. Agree with nominator, it is borderline but does not check through.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:34, 11 January 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.