Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Chapin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Chapin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG and BLP. Nothing notable about this individual. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, Chapin meets the subject-specific criteria here (over 200 pro points, and 5 PT top 8's).  There are a couple additional sources that can be used, e.g, although the sourcing is somewhat weak. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * once again, the "subject-specific criteria here" may be found on obscure WikiProject, but it is not policy when it comes to notability, which may be found at WP:BIO and WP:NSPORT -- actual, honest to God, Wikipedia policy pages, as agreed upon by the greater community. WP:GNG applies too of course -- and of course he fails that miserably. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If we want to judge based on the strict letter of the GNG, that's fine. Sources:     (All found within 2 pages of google searches, excluding a couple of court reports that I could have thrown in there, but would have been primary sources.)  Continuing -,. I can keep going if anyone is not convinced. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm still not. I would say that those appear to be blogs that would run afoul of WP:USERG, and are not considered reliable sources for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that argument, and retract sources 2, 5, and perhaps 6 based on that rationale. That still leaves 6 or 7 sources plus whatever is in the article, which should be plenty for the GNG.  Tazerdadog (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'll keep a watch on this Afd, see what others think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete only sourced to blogs, does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I find that statement (sourced only to blogs) to be simply false. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on sources found by Tazerdadog, this article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * weak keep/merge have a source that isn't anything to write home about, meets a reasonable SNG. Eh.  I'd prefer we have a list of some sort to merge these folks to. Hobit (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's give this one more spin, though in my opinion this is leaning towards Delete. Can any editor in favor of keeping the article find some reliable sources for the subject's notability? That is to say, not some blog posts?
 * Delete as there has been no confirmed consensus these people and their possessed connections of that field are independently notable; there's nothing from the Keep votes actually suggesting this can be convincingly kept, substantiated and improved. SwisterTwister   talk  05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train ''talk 11:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2016 (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.