Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Williams (equestrian)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Matt Williams (equestrian)

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

Does not meet WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, failing NOLY alone is not a reason to delete. Per NSPORT, which it is part of, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to pass GNG per the sources in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG requires multiple indepdent sources. 3 of these sources all have the same writer, so GNG is not being met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Sails past WP:NEQUESTRIAN which states "Individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport are presumed notable if they: 1.Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as a rider or official team coach". LibStar: please check policies properly before nominating AfD: WP:NOLY clearly states "Athletes from some sports are presumed notable if they have participated in the Olympics with or without winning a medal. Please see individual sports above for more information." Cabrils (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is quite sufficient in these three search results  to support GNG.  (There is almost certainly more but I stopped looking.)  Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Aoziwe. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the post-nom expansion work.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 23 February 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.