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. While it is overwhelming to have many articles on a similar subject nominated for deletion very quickly after each other, that is no reason to cut & paste the same response to each nomination. I think it would be better in cases like this to ask for a relisting for cases that will take longer to track down sources than to provide a generic response.

But I also think mass nominations should be discouraged as they can easily overwhelm editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions and who want to consider each individual case thoughtfully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jauron Gayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Many others and I have raised the point that this revisionism and clean-sweep of articles that were previously considered notable but are no longer is not productive to Wikipedia. We have raised the point that articles previously written should be "grandfathered" as notable. You contribute to a lot of these discussions. What are your feelings on the subject?Gri3720 (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no sources present that meet GNG. Articles should never be "grandfathered" ever. Articles need to be judged by current inclusion criteria. When inclusion criteria change we remove those articles that no longer meet notability criteria. We do not lock in inclusion criteria when an article is created. When Wikipedia was created it had no inclusion criteria at all. Eventually we realized that we needed some, and over time they have been changed based on community consensus. When these changes occur articles that no longer meet the new standard are removed. Only articles that meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria can be justified in being kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. No such coverage is in the article and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2022 (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.