Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Van De Velde (2nd nomination)

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 draftify. Closed slightly early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Van De Velde

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This isn't an encyclopedia article. It reads like a bio on his employer's website. And while I'm aware that deletion isn't cleanup, my search didn't turn up convincing evidence of WP:SIGCOV anyway. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Education, American football, Iowa, and Wisconsin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or TNT this mess. I think he probably is notable based on the coverage I find, but wow this looks like a website bio. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is notable, but the article as written sure doesn't look like NPV or COI or such. Draftify is a good option for an enthusiastic editor to re-write. If someone wants to get super-enthusiastic and edit it right now that could make a difference. I would prefer editing over deletion, but I prefer deletion over nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify although a complete rewrite would be necessary so maybe WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The subject has been the athletic director at three Division I programs (Iowa State, Utah State, and Louisiana Tech) and is thus likely to have SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. That said, Lepricavark's comments about the state of the article raise valid concerns. Draftification will allow time for the article to be brought up to snuff (including addition of actual SIGCOV), should anyone care to undertake that effort. (Current citations to the Louisiana Tech and Iowa State web sites are not independent and therefore do not count toward GNG.) Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This is not written in a way that should remain in main space. The subject passes GNG but it needs a major rewrite. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Aside from the verbatim copy-paste from his employer's website that was included in the article, this really does fail WP:BLP sourcing standards to such an extent that draftification is warranted. This looks like COI editing, and draftification is warranted per WP:DRAFTIFY#5. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see coverage exists for an article, but in the present state, the article is not ready. Since this is the second AfD the article should be sent to draft and then it should be submitted through WP:AFC before a return to main space. Bruxton (talk) 15:13, 10 January 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.