Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane Beneby


 * 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! 08:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Duane Beneby

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find sufficient in-depth, independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing close to constituting SIGCOV that I could uncover. Only one real "hit" in a local news outlet here where he's just answering an interview question. Everything else is just trivial squad announcements. He's only played five competitive international games as well, so I think it's safe to say that there's no real chance of significant offline sources either. SmackJam (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's been here for 4 years and is only being deleted due to new rules. The article isn't bothering or hurting anything and is just removing useful information from the site.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be different if there was any verifiable information out there on him, but there just isn't. Hell, I wrote the vast majority of the article and even I can put my hand up and say this isn't contributing much at all to the encyclopedia. It's more bloat than anything, and all of its useful information is already archived at the Wayback Machine. I'm as big an inclusionist as the next guy but this was already a borderline pass of the old NFOOTY so I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over it going. SmackJam (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that WP:ITSHARMLESS is a very, very poor argument for keeping. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with SmackJam's honest assessment of an article that they essentially wrote (massive respect to anyone that can accept that an article that they wrote fails WP:GNG). I couldn't find any decent sources myself. Nothing found in ProQuest as well as search engines that others probably already checked. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:SIGCOV exists, clear fail of WP:GNG.  Frank  Anchor  19:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking into this myself in some depth, I find no WP:SIGCOV to warrant inclusion under any notability claim per WP:GNG. If WP:SIGCOV were satisfied and WP:GNG met, I would be more inclined to support keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2023 (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.