Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Litchfield


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Litchfield

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability concerns. Created by an editor with a declared COI. There is no SNG specifically for swimmers, but I don't see WP:NSPORT being met; simply participating in the Commonwealth Games is insufficient. No independent sources, just interviews/stats on British Swimming's sites and the International Swimming League site. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - and see User talk:MWellmann - new user needs some guidance on how to do this. Don't delete yet. This new user has good intentions, but not enough guidance on how this should be done. — Maile  (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is one of a large number of stub-class articles created by the author about competitive swimmers. On the one hand, Wikipedia does not have a notability guideline for competitive swimmers and should adopt one.  As it is, they only satisfy sports notability if they have competed in the Olympic Games or satisfy general notability.  On the other hand, this and the other stubs in question are conflict of interest articles.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Maile66 - What guidance do you plan to give to the subject editor? How will they satisfy notability??  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the article does not pass GNG. SNGs have been used too long to prop up articles that say nothing of substance about the subject. I do not think this is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (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.