Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauri Bonacorsi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Lauri Bonacorsi

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98  (Talk)  18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports,  and Missouri.  Bgsu98   (Talk)  18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (Inquirer, Golden Skate, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. NSKATE is not as important as BASIC. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in Australia). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please familiarise yourself with WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your argumentation seems to fall fully within that realm. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That the subject of the article meets WP:BASIC is a valid policy-based reason for keeping the article. Hameltion had already given examples of significant coverage in two different reliable sources, so there was no point in my repeating them. Nothing in the essay you mentioned contradicts that.
 * Explaining how articles like this one support other articles is not a policy-based reason for retention. But it is nevertheless true. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You said that BASIC is important, which looks like a general statement. What we should do is discuss the actual sources and whether they are good enough to base a Wikipedia biography about a living person upon. The rest of it more or less clutter and should therefore be toned down. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough WP:SIGCOV in the sources already present in the article to meet WP:GNG. Yet another poor nomination. You can see an archived version of the Inquirer article here. JTtheOG (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2024 (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.