Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Rodrigs
- 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. ✗plicit 10:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ryan Rodrigs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I evaluate the Toronto.com and CTV News sources as not being independent enough because they are mostly quotes. The Ottawa Business Journal might pass GNG. That is only one source, so insufficient. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Question is why the nominator have marked it as NPP reviewed if it clearly not passes GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hey CommanderWaterford. It's in the flowchart, and at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Articles for deletion (AfD) (last paragraph). Basically, AFD's get marked as reviewed, while PRODs and CSDs do not. You can set Twinkle to do it automatically when nominating for AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree that the sources other than the Ottawa Business Journal one is not RS. Yes, there is one 404, but the other two (Toronto.com and CTV) appear to have talked about him significantly, not just passing mentions or quotes. Therefore, it passes (albeit narrowly) the three source rule and thus GNG. Nothing personal or any strong objections to deletion, but I just don't think it fails GNG. WikiAviator talk 09:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - this should never have passed review. Deb (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2021 (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.