Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Jamieson (sprinter)


 * 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 merge to Stawell Gift. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sam Jamieson (sprinter)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:NTRACK. Has information from only one source, the Herald Sun, which isn't considered to be a reliable secondary source. Nevertheless, the subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the notability guidelines for their sport. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge into Stawell Gift - not individually notable person as this race is a community handicap event rather than an elite competition. SFB 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination shows a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. A basic search shows coverage in multiple other mainstream reliable sources. Even if you are not keen on a stand alone article (might see it as blp1e) there is a clear alternative to deletion as pointed out above. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you talking about? – because I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that talk about him other than very briefly, in passing. He also doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, . duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those three sources hardly make him meet WP:NTRACK. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete There is no evidence of multiple sources that would lead to passing GNG. Ideally people who want to argue for such should add the sourcing to the article. At a minimum they need to cite specific sources in an argument to keep. They key to Wikipedia is verrifiability, which means finding sources, not just asserting they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Sillyfolkboy - no one has demonstrated that a merge to there isn't inappropriate. Johnpacklambert's contribution is unhelpful and should be ignored. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (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.