Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon McComb

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. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon McComb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found absolutely zero significant coverage in my BEFORE, which included a newspaper search. Mach61 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When no sources have been uncovered to meet SPORTSCRIT, the article should be deleted. Does not appear to meet GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: What's wrong with this source to qualify for SPORTCRIT? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic info do we gain from that? The only material would be this particular reporter's very subjective personal opinions on his candidacy for a spot on the team. We can't write an article entirely around quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 31 December 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.
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon McComb, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.