Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Conroy

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. Consensus that the subject meets GNG. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Conroy

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

Local independent ball player who doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. WP:BLP1E applies as the coverage only applies to his sexuality and not his playing achievements. Prevan (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as third-party sources could be incorporated, I feel this article discusses a notable subject worth keeping.TH1980 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sports Illustrated source establishes his notoriety. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides appropriate reliable and verifiable sources about him as an individual that establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the other third party sources, he gets quite a bit of coverage in this book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (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.