Dylan Inserra (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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, de-PRODed by Ingratis without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions only. There is enough here to suggest the possibility of notability, and that deletion might not be uncontroversial, so more eyes on the article would be beneficial. See WP:PROD and WP:ATD. I have no other opinion on the article or the subject. Ingratis (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary. Adding for awareness. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, this is uncontroversial as stated in the PROD summary. It squarely falls under WP:DEL-REASON as the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. More than happy to go through the process with as many eyes as needed. While I haven't gone through this process as many times as others, usually when I encounter a WP:DEPROD there is some sort of evidence provided to counter the PROD which wasn't done here so it's outside what I've typically experienced. GauchoDude (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the page clearly meets notability requirements.

  This athlete is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men’s pair from the United States to final in a world championship. Sources below:

  https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

  https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

  https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

  https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

  Subject also qualifies as notable as he won his country's “senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships” twice in a row, in 2009 and 2010 - https://usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2601:140:8400:4320:4D9A:9A66:A637:9E47 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gymnast is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men's pair from the United States to final in a world championship.

Sources below:

[1]https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

[2]https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

[https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

Subject qualifies as notable because

"Subject won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship in 2009 and 2010 while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships"

https://+usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2603:8080:7400:223D:9C97:5C6A:6714:DDD7 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources support notability, which requires coverage be independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of clarification on the previous user above JoelleJay's argument stemming from WP:NGYMNAST - The assumption of significant coverage applies only to cases of artistic gymnasts, as stated in the first line. Regardless of the assumption, each individual subject must be held to WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]