Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McCrank

[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)

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP McCrank is a significant skateboarder and absolutely deserves a page. He also had a show on Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/dpky4v/tonight-on-viceland-abandoned-native-land --Wil540 art (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a show on Vice is not a notability freebie if your source for it is Vice's own self-published web presence — to make that a notability claim, you need to show a reliable source not directly affiliated with Vice writing about it. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP McCrank has riden professionally for three of the prestigious companies in skateboarding for 20+ years, with full parts in several of the most influential skate videos of the 1990s/2000s. He has had multiple covers on Transworld and Thrasher. All of these make him one of the most recognisable and notable skateboarders today. Eklektikos (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the sourcing can be improved. In terms of determining whether a person qualifies for an article or not, the test is not the things the article says, but the amount of reliable source coverage in real, unaffiliated media that can or cannot be shown to suppport the things it says. But the footnotes here are not reliable or notability-supporting sources — literally across the board, they're YouTube videos, directories and primary source profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies and organizations, with not even one source shown that represents professional third party journalism with him as its subject. No matter what notability claim a person can make, he has to have better sourcing to support it than this before he qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2020 (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.