Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam suttie


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Liam suttie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Short article about a Junior Tennis Player with no sources. Google research gives Under 12s Nationals, fails WP:TENNIS/N. A speedy was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Why don't you just wait until the BLPPROD finishes? If he's not notable, as is likely, there won't be any reliable sources to add to the article.  Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer Practical reasons: BLP 10 days vs. AfD 7 days. And you don't have to guard the article for 10 days if an IP deletes the BLP. Kids often do that and I'm pretty sure this article about a kid is from a kid.--Ben Ben (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to guard a BLP-prodded article any more than you do an article that's at AFD: neither template may be removed. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If a PROD is removed, it stays removed. A removed AfD tag would be reverted by every patroller. Reason 2: I hope that a few editors would recommend Speedy delete --Ben Ben (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody, including you, is allowed to remove a BLPPROD without adding sources: that's why the page is still marked with one, even though you removed it. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nyttend, I think we should cool this down. I don't wanna any kind of stress about this. Let me explain... First, I used a script called Twinkle to place my AfD tag in the article. I thought it would place it on top of the PROD, but instead it replaced it. Didn't know that, didn't intend that, sorry. Second, please could you link your statement Nobody is allowed to remove a BLPPROD without adding sources to the corresponding part in Proposed deletion? Can't find it there.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Down at the bottom, in the Sticky prod section (or in more detail at their policy page). Despite the similar name, BLPPRODs and PRODs have substantively different processes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very Week Keep - It took about thirty seconds to find this link, and perhaps others can be found:
 * Also, the nomination's rationale as having no sources has been nullified, despite the fact that this source only mentions the person, it remains a source, albeit a weak one. Perhaps consider further qualifying the topic, and if the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, then delete it.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Under 12s in any sport need significant coverage, unless they are competiting in open competition. He isn't, and only has minor coverage. The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The sole result in Google News Archive is a passing mention. The subject fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to show notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 09:42, 3 December 2011 (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.