Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Booker

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 speedy Closed without prejudice to renominate. Withdrawn as too broad -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Booker

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

Prod was removed without improvement by the creator. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding other articles created by the same author. Same criteria. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holy bulk deletions, Batman! 28 in one AFD? I'll grant that some probably should be deleted, but a quick review showed that there are reasonable soruces to pass WP:GNG for some of the nominations as well (such as Andrew DePaola). Just because one editor creates an article that might (probably will) be deleted is not a reason to delete every article created by that editor unless there is some sort of malice or bad faith involved. I don't see that here. It doesn't appear that WP:BEFORE was followed and I think we should take more time before sending all 28 to AFD just because one (probably overly-enthusiastic) editor created them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were all nominated because the claim of notability would reasonably be that they were NFL players. Since none have played a regular season game, and all contained about the same information, notability is in question. None seemed to have any other claim. Nothing about any of the subjects seem to pass clauses A, B, C, or D of WP:BEFORE. I'll fully accept a good slapping if my logic is horrifically flawed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a good faith nomination, just one I disagree with. For example, Google News Archive is showing a large number of articles for DePaola, as does Barbieri. Yes, the articles claim notability through NFL play, but I would say that the articles--at least in these cases--are incomplete and notability can be found through WP:GNG for their play at the collegiate level. That's not an automatic assertion, it does still need to be addressed--but the AFD is so bulky that it is unwieldy to truly determine for each article.--Paul McDonald (talk)

Speedy close (not "keep") without prejudice to immediate separate renomination of any and all of these. As Paulmacdonald says, dealing with all of these in one big bulk nomination is too unwieldy. And at least one of the creator's bios has been recently kept. So I think each of them is entitled to separate scrutiny. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree I forgot to specifically mention "without prejudice to renominate" and that of course makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'll close and renominate individually as needed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (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.