Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bain

:{{la|Brian Bain}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Bain Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Brian Bain}})

Another non-notable qualifier who apparently has done nothing much since article was created Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• delete a non-notable rodeo participant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:NRODEO, so presumption is that sources exist. Three sources are provided in the article, so we don't even need the presumption. Also twice competed in NFR, so its not WP:1E. Not sure on the point "...apparently has done nothing much since article was created." Don't know what they need to do more of - they already twice competed at the highest level. I know of no requirement of sustained excellence five years later. RonSigPi (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Per WP:NRODEO. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• NRODEO is a guideline, this individual fails to meet WP:GNG. The article has sources, but they are not helping, they note that he won four rodeos one year. Not impressive. One source is a passing mention, the other two are local papers. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• The GNG is a guideline also. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• GNG is a shortcut to a subsection of WP:N, which is policy. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." SL93 (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• This has come up multiple times, but while editors should be mindful of local sources, local sources in of themselves are perfectly acceptable regarding GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from nom: While I actually agree that local coverage can "count" toward the coverage requirement to meet WP:N , the problem is that this particular person really hasn't done anything of importance even though he hit the local papers a couple times. The point is that he qualified for the national level twice, but didn't even finish in the money. If he'd run second or third at the NFR, I'd probably not have put this up for AfD. But as it sits, unless you can actually find more sources (and note them here), what's in the article fails to establish notability -- NSPORTS is a floor, not a guarantee of an article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient quality and detailed sources to warrant an article per WP:GNG; subject-specific guidelines are not dispositive.  Sandstein  14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The reading of WP:N is ""A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." This cannot mean that the special notability guidelines are merely secondary or limitations on the GNG--it says "or" , not "and". It has to meet one or the other. If this is not the intent of the community, we'd have to find and agree on a better wording. (I suggest the place to do that is on the individual SNGs, because I think the consensus is likely to be different.) There's also been a good deal of confusion about "presumed"-- what the plain meaning of the word is, that it holds unless it is actually proven otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:NRODEO, which is a part of the sports guideline that says "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC).
• delete per lankiveil. coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG. For the local sources to come close to meeting RS requirement, they would need to be much deeper and broader than what is here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.