Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Letele (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 Keep as per no calls for deletion beyond the nominator and a unanimous consensus (albeit in various degrees of strength) to keep the article among the editors participating in this discussion. Going forward, it might be a good idea to keep a lookout for better sourcing for this subject, lest we go for another AfD. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

David Letele
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally deleted per G4 as not significantly different from the version previously deleted at AfD for failing WP:NBOXING and WP:GNG, but restored after discussion to send to AfD for community consensus. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks, Patar knight, for restoring this. I suggest that since the previous AfD discussion in October 2015, Letele has achieved general notability. There was previously a substantial article in The New Zealand Herald (August 2015), and since then we have had an interview with Mens Mag NZ (undated, but published on their Facebook page on 17 April 2016, although they published a lot of stuff that day and I don't know whether that was about getting older content onto the FB site), Newshub reporting (6 March 2016), a 5:49 min interview with Paul Henry (6 May 2016), and a fairly long article in the The Sunday Star-Times (21 May 2016). That should be more than sufficient.  Schwede 66  20:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:NBIO estabished and reliably with secondary sources. (Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC))
 * I thought I'd ping everybody who has participated in the previous deletion discussion, as editors may not have this article on their watchlist.  Schwede 66  08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The original AfD was correct and mainly hinged on not meeting WP:NBOX - a situation that remains.  I do remember the article enough to see that there are more references and some expansion of non-boxing information but frankly neither the Rugby or having a Weight-loss regime contribute to his notability.  So the question boils down to WP:GNG and that would reflect news coverage.  I want to think about this a bit more and see what others say.  I do think that the article is in a better position now then it was so the restore and bring it to second AfD makes sense.  Benny (the original editor) writes well but with a local flavor.  Not a reason to move in any direction - just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think there is enough to meet WP:BASIC NealeFamily (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Most of the sources given are routine sports reporting. However, I do think there is just enough there to squeak by on meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article could do with a trim, and some of the sources look a bit tabloidish, but I believe there is enough sustained coverage in national sports news to be able to fix all that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:23, 28 June 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.