This article will address the topic of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayson Vemoa, which has gained relevance in recent years due to its impact on different aspects of society. From
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayson Vemoa has marked a before and after in the way we relate, to its influence in the economic and political sphere, this topic has sparked great interest and debate among experts and citizens alike. Along these lines, the origin, evolution and repercussions of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayson Vemoa will be analyzed, offering a detailed look at its present and future implications and challenges.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Jayson Vemoa (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)
A vanity page created by himself. I removed a ton of uncited fluff and resume entries and it doesn't meet WP:NKICK. Nswix (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nswix, Non-notable, vanity page MNewnham (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - The article had been here for years without issue and is only being challenged due to current rules, which were poorly thought out and likely will end up being temporary. Removing it adds nothing to the website to make it better.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- These rules are gonna stick around longer than this article at least. Delete - vanity pape, fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, sources are utter garbage: Getty Image captions, literal forum posts (), straight videos, trivial mentions, and pure database stats. These are disallowed per longstanding WP policies, which all participants at AfD must be familiar with. JoelleJay (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree that this is purely a vanity article on someone who is miles away from WP:SPORTBASIC. I agree with Joelle above, the sources are dreadful. This would have failed even before WP:NSPORTS2022 so the point about recent guideline changes is moot. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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.