Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Geick (3rd 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. Consensus appears clear that newly-added sources help establish that Geick now meeets the GNG. Star  Mississippi  15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Dylan Geick
AfDs for this article:


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

This page has been deleted twice before. The references added since then don't change much. Still does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Still does not meet WP:GNG. agt x 02:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: We need to revisit the source analysis please. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Poetry, Wrestling,  and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Geick meets WP:SIGCOV per 2021 in VMan, 2019 in Outsports, 2018 in The New York Times, 2018 and 2017 in Lake County News-Sun, 2017 in ChicagoPride.com. This isn't routine college game statistics as stated in WP:NCOLLATH. Local coverage shouldn't be discounted (WP:ITSLOCAL). Perhaps one day, coming out won't be newsworthy, but in this instance, the coverage is there. TJMSmith (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep with TJMSmith's sources enough to pass GNG. I added another sigcov source to the article (this one). I haven't stopped looking but I didn't want to forget to !vote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added a 2017 Chicago Tribune SIGCOV source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This source was discussed specifically at the last AfD, where it was explained that this is local WP:YOUNGATH type coverage not actually from the Tribune. agt x  16:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , multiple sources in the article and linked here are reliable, secondary, independent, and significant in their coverage of Geick. On what grounds do you see a GNG failure? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is discussed at length in the second AfD. It's the same sources, and the same reasons apply. agt x  16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying to your comment just above and the one timestamped 16:13: the 2018 Tribune/News-Sun piece was mentioned at the last AfD, but the 2017 one is new. The analysis applied seems to be an NCOLLATH one, but GNG does not have a "national media" requirement and the analysis isn't simply transferable to a different guideline. Though syndicated from the News-Sun, the 2017 piece was published in the Tribune. The Daily Herald piece and VMan feature weren't discussed in the last AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another source that wasn't discussed last time is the 2021 paper in the Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education that uses Geick as one of its three case studies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * : here's a source analysis table (just below, collapsed). I didn't include all the sources in the article or mentioned here. Some of these sources were discussed in the last AfD, but most commenters were analyzing them through the lens of NCOLLATH. There's no need for SNG analysis here, as GNG is met. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 14 May 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.