Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Kunkel (catcher)

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 is that the coverage is insufficient for a standalone article--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kunkel (catcher)

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Kunkel doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since we already have a pretty good biographical sketch from WP:RS, I would say it passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Only citations are two local articles. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony. Alex (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twelve paragraphs in a local notes column isn't enough to pass GNG, no matter what the two people above say. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: one [1] (which spends only a few paragraphs about the subject) and one paywalled article here, and also no audience requirement, but two sources, one with only partial coverage, are not enough for the subject to meet WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided don't constitute passing GNG. Wizardman 00:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esquivalience. BenLinus 1214^talk 19:41, 7 May 2015 (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.