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 keep. Consensus reached is that the article just barely scrapes by WP:GNG, despite failing WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Schipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep Took me a while to go through the sources and check over the article. I feel there is just enough there to just scrape by GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – going through the sources in the article that by title appear to discuss him in-depth: ref 1 is one sentence then a bulleted career timeline. Refs 2 and 10, duplicated is primary and written by the league. Ref 4 and ref 5 appear to be good towards GNG. Ref 17 is just a transfer announcement. Ref 18 also appears to be good for GNG. The remaining articles are routine coverage and not applicable towards a GNG pass or fail. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG, despite failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as he has just enough coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Passes GNG per source analysis by Keskkonnakaitse.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (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.