Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Parry


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Leah Parry

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

Fails WP:NOLY, and doesn't have significant secondary source coverage WP:SPORTBASIC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, Softball,  and Australia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to be plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG, such as, , , , etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete local human insterest stories about local people used to put a local spin on an international spors competition are not the type of coverage from which we can justify having an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: have you ever voted keep on any AfD ever? Because it seems your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to mass delete every single contentious article on here. Even with the sources provided by Lugnuts above, demonstrating that Parry meets GNG, you still vote delete. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find one or two keeps from the last 400 AfDs! No idea why Lambert would insist on deletion in this case, with the sources provided.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you were asked a question here and invited to change your !vote as it is not supported by the sources that have been shown. It would be great if you could at least do Davidlofgren1996 the courtesy of replying. Deus et lex (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG per Lugnuts - there is nothing that says local coverage does not satisfy GNG, as long as the paper is reliable I don't see why it wouldn't. In any case, these are major regional and national papers, not some small-town local paper with nothing better to report on. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Lugnuts. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify As the entry stands now, there is no significant independent source covering her. Lugnuts has shown that there are many more sources that can be added to the source section. If the writer improves the article and adds the sources then I would move to keep PaulPachad (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no requirements to add the sources, and lack of improvement of an article (even at AfD) is NOT a reason for deletion.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For future reference, it's covered at WP:CONRED - "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Leah Parry is an Australian Olympian. The sources provided are from reputable national publications.WAAPHC (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/question. 140 games for the Australia national team seems significant, but I don't have a good way of searching Australian sources. I'm not voting for now, but I'm pretty sure that a player with a similar resume for Team USA would be an easy shoo-in with tons of sources. Has anyone done an Australian newspaper search? Jacona (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lugnuts - meets notability criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources above are very in-depth SIGCOV, providing significant coverage of Parry, and not just her Olympic appearances. Easily meets GNG. No 1E concerns. Jacona (talk) 11:02, 31 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.