Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Hallman

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 delete. A Train^talk 19:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Hallman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced article about a lacrosse player of uncertain notability. WP:NATHLETE lists no specific "automatic inclusion" criteria for lacrosse players at all, so I can only judge this against whether he clears WP:GNG or not -- but the only two references here are both primary sources published by directly affiliated teams and leagues, not reliable source coverage about him in media. And the creator's username was "Braves01", while the subject has been associated with a team called the Braves, so there was a probable conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it's tenuous but there seem to be a handful of articles floating around, referenced or not (e.g.).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One local newspaper article in his team's own local media market is not enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply being a fan of a team the subject plays for does not violate WP:COI. We all write about topics we're interested in. Unless there's evidence creator actually worked for the team, I'm not seeing any violation there. I remind nominator to assume good faith before making accusations like that. Smartyllama (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of the substantial coverage that is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG and I don't see any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.