Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Brazell


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  12:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Kyle Brazell

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. RoboCric Let's chat  05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat  11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future. Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.