Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Gourley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The consensus was not very clear, but WP:V takes precedence. We have no source at all for any of this content, not even for the existence of this person. Sandstein 10:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Gourley

Mitchell Gourley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has no significance, it is about a young person who is yet to become notabable. Based on things such as 'believes in the simpsons' (all in lower case) it is obvious that it lacks. Can we put the image up for deletion as well? I believe this person is not notable enough to belong on Wikipedia. themit 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - 41 non-wiki ghits, verifiability problems. MER-C 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - article does not make an adequate assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 07:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The Olympics are still crystal ballery, but the NorAm series of Ski Races appears to be notable (why else would a Paralympic Bronze medalist join the team?). I'm leaning towards a keep if sources can be tracked down. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A bronze medalist joined the team meaning that the bronze medalist should be noted, not the others. If you take a look at the article's history, there was lot of nonsense content at the bottom which I removed. [1]. And another thing, why doesn't Wikipedia have an article about this already? themit 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My point was that if there's a bronze medalist in the team, then it's not your sports equivalent of a garage band. Sports people who join in notable sports events are notable themselves (even if they don't win). - Mgm|(talk) 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per macGyver. Trollderella 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability by association is a poor measure of notability. -- Alan McBeth 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and inherent lack of notability for the moment. Eusebeus 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mgm.Sharkface217
  • Keep. Notability established. Mukadderat 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
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.