Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Inserra

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Dylan Inserra}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Dylan Inserra}})

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Additional comment, de-PRODed by {{U|Ingratis}} without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions only. There is enough here to suggest the possibility of notability, and that deletion might not be uncontroversial, so more eyes on the article would be beneficial. See :WP:PROD and :WP:ATD. I have no other opinion on the article or the subject. Ingratis (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:As I said in the edit summary. Adding for awareness. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::*In my opinion, this is uncontroversial as stated in the PROD summary. It squarely falls under WP:DEL-REASON as the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. More than happy to go through the process with as many eyes as needed. While I haven't gone through this process as many times as others, usually when I encounter a WP:DEPROD there is some sort of evidence provided to counter the PROD which wasn't done here so it's outside what I've typically experienced. GauchoDude (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::*:I think the page clearly meets notability requirements.

::*:This athlete is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men’s pair from the United States to final in a world championship. Sources below:

::*:https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

::*:https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

::*:https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

::*:https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

::*:Subject also qualifies as notable as he won his country's “senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships” twice in a row, in 2009 and 2010 - https://usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2601:140:8400:4320:4D9A:9A66:A637:9E47 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:This gymnast is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men's pair from the United States to final in a world championship.

:Sources below:

:[https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/]https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

:[https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153]https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

:[https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/ [https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/]https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

:Subject qualifies as notable because

:"Subject won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship in 2009 and 2010 while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships"

:https:// usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2603:8080:7400:223D:9C97:5C6A:6714:DDD7 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::None of those sources support notability, which requires coverage be independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Comment: Point of clarification on the previous user above JoelleJay's argument stemming from WP:NGYMNAST - The assumption of significant coverage applies only to cases of artistic gymnasts, as stated in the first line. Regardless of the assumption, each individual subject must be held to WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:

Comment: For what it's worth, as the creator, my vote is delete. I would imagine that's implied as the OP, but wanted to spell out for clarity. Additionally, {{U|JoelleJay}} looks to also be a delete, bringing the total to two in favor of delete.

There appear to be two, anonymous WP:SPA whose only contributions between the two of them in all of Wikipedia are this discussion. That seems oddly specific and niche and someone may want to look into that, but given that they posted nearly identical content, I think it's safe to say it was likely one person who may have had a technological glitch. I think it's safe to say they're a vote for keep.

Original deprod user {{U|Ingratis}} has not to date taken a position, but moreso put this to a procedural AfD.

For me, for any further voters or the closing admin, no one has yet addressed the lack of WP:SIGCOV for this individual. The links provided above were not substantial enough to warrant an article and two, ([https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/ here] and [https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/ here]) appear to be the same article on two separate websites whose main topic isn't even about the subject here of which they're literally mentioned one time. Without an establishment of WP:GNG via sources, which is a guideline, this article goes against WP:V, which is a policy. GauchoDude (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - Re {{U|GauchoDude}}'s remark above, I have no view one way or the other and will not be giving a !vote. I de-PRODded simply because it seemed quite possible that there might be further significant coverage which could be brought to light by an AfD discussion. If so, fine. If not, also fine. Ingratis (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV and it doesn't look like any has been uncovered in this discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2025 (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.