Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kody O’Neil

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Kody O’Neil}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kody_O%E2%80%99Neil Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Kody O’Neil}})

Fails WP:GNG. While he arguably meets rugby notability guidelines, the league he plays in hasn't been shown to guarantee notability under the GNG guideline (it was just added to a list without discussion.) The three references include the team's website (primary) with the other two being wordpress blogs about U.S. rugby. A fairly extensive WP:BEFORE search brought up no other coverage apart from match reports. Two news searches brought up literally no results. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:NRU seems to be satisfied by his play for the Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby, which is on the list of approved fully professional teams over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. I agree the article could use better sourcing, but that isn't a reason for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

:*{{re|Onel5969}} I know we discussed this at the last AfD, but there's a (very lightly attended so far) discussion here regarding whether this league should even have been on the WP:NRU list to begin with. Furthermore, simply meeting a sports notability criteria doesn't mean you don't still have to pass WP:GNG, and I've thoroughly looked - I don't think there's any way to improve this article through secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

::*Hi {{u|SportingFlyer}} - I understand, and wish there was more participation. However, the fact that the Rugby project has been alerted about this, and still that league remains on the list, makes me feel that it should be included.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

:::*Nobody from the project has commented on the league, and the only other user who has commented in a much larger forum agrees with me. I feel like I could easily revert that change per WP:BRD and not get into any sort of edit conflict. Furthermore, an SNG is meaningless if WP:GNG is not satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:NRU played for a fully professional team. Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby. according to policy a subject needs to pass either SNG or GNG not both. Sometimes a handful of editors show up and a consensus goes against that policy, however that is why the subject specific guidelines were created. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

:*That's not the case - look at any of our WP:NFOOTY-related deletions where the SNG is technically met, but no sources demonstrating GNG can be found, the articles are deleted. The SNG creates a presumption of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

::*WP:GNG states 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:NRU and added one source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

:*{{re|CASSIOPEIA}} as I've noted above and on the league should not have been added to WP:NRU in the first place (see the discussion here), and while I appreciate you adding a source, WP:GNG still isn't satisfied - djcoilrugby.com is one person's blog. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 18 November 2019 (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.