In today's world,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lucey is a topic that has sparked great interest and debate in different areas. Its relevance and impact are undeniable, and its influence extends to a wide range of aspects of daily life. As time progresses,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lucey continues to be the object of analysis, reflection and study, since its importance is not limited to a single area, but crosses borders and affects people of different cultures, ages and social conditions. In this article, we will explore this topic in depth, analyzing its different perspectives and consequences, in order to better understand its scope and meaning in today's society.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Peter Lucey (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)
Sources are lacking, not surprising for a manager of a junior camogie team. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources are somehow lacking... Most are from Independent.ie (including The Herald), and GNG says: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The article in the Irish Examiner mentions the subject in a sentence of twelve words. Half the citations are about the subject's family members. NOTINHERITED says: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." No one has added anything else to this article since about an hour after this nomination was opened, nearly two weeks ago. I don't know what else to add to it. Given that it is four sentences, and if someone can prove otherwise, it isn't an enormous loss and wouldn't be difficult to begin again. --Gaois (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2022 (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.