Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordyn Faiczak

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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Faiczak (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. All current references on the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources added in the expansion are all trivial mentions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to clarify how this multi-paragraph profile of Faiczak is a trivial mention? Samsmachado (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the subject do not count. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting quotations from the subject and (for the sake of argument) leaving out paragraphs that do not mention the subject by name still leaves us with several paragraphs totalling to approx. 300 words. This is hardly trivial as per the definition outlined at Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Also, for future reference, if your critique is to do with an excess of quotations, that is a problem of independence (due to the possibility of close association with the subject if the article is exclusively or almost exclusively quotations) not triviality (for clarification on the difference, see WP:GNG). Samsmachado (talk) 20:48, 21 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.