Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'Arcy Keating

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 keep‎. The sourcing now is very different from what it was to start with. This is not an ironclad "keep" AfD outcome, but it would be far easier to have any hypothetical rerun as a fresh discussion instead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arcy Keating

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It was previously proposed for deletion twice. And that's obvious, because, there's only one source (which isn't in-depth, but rather statistics only). Also, upon Google search, not much comes up other than stats. No real in-depth coverage. Only analytical. Does statistical coverage establish notability? X (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Dolovis article; why am I not surprised at who created an unsourced article on a completely unremarkable player whose career consisted of a handful of seasons in the low minors? Complete failure of the GNG, of course. Ravenswing 09:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing, Is this Dolovis user infamous for creating such baseless pages? If so, then that's surprising how this article has been standing there for 10 years. X (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was ultimately tbanned from new article creation, among other sanctions, but the problem was that he created thousands of such articles. Anyone familiar with XfD/prods knows how much resistance is out there to cleaning up such torrents. Ravenswing 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing, I've gone through some of their articles, and have found so many that easily don't fit for mainspace. It'd be so tedious to go and tag each of them, but nonetheless, someone's gotta do it. We can't keep their unfit/bogus articles aflot like this one for 10+ years. X (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I AfDed a bunch in the wake of the ban, but obviously there's so much more to go. Ravenswing 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've come up with a couple of sources that discuss him in detail.[1][2] I'm going to see if I can dig more up. Alvaldi (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:GNG as per WP:HEY. Flibirigit (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several sources (in the article and Alvadi's) that provide significant coverage of Keating, so he passes GNG. In fairness to Dolovis, when this article was created 10 years ago, I believe that having playing more than 300 games in the IHL would have met NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2023 (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.