Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke O'Hanley

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 Draftify‎. It can be improved, and probably should not have been nominated so soon, however nor should it have yet been in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke O'Hanley (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)

Failure of WP:GNG. This source cited on article is a primary source, and the other two do not offer significant coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed with Paul Vaurie, the sourcing is nowhere close to passing NSPORT. Soccer USA and Sun Journal are passing mentions; the Palo Alto Online source is better, but still contains a lot of primary/non-independent content; the stats page is stats; Portland Pilots is not independent; and the Campanile piece is a local interview from when she was in high school and so fails YOUNGATH. That's not enough to justify an article.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2023 (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.