- 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. Sandstein 19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Almon Gunter
- Almon Gunter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Verging on NN. Clamed to be a USA track and field sprinter however, cannot find any mention of him on their main webpage. Google search provides little to go on as well. A further dig however on a Yahoo chat room of all places says he was a qualifier for the (what?) Olympics but nothing else. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Night fury 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I think there are enough sources to justify this page, but to your point, it needs editing. Your comments about athletic accomplishment sources are correct and if those qualifier sources cannot be easily verified, they should be removed, however, the subject has enough sources to justify relevance overall (authorship & national youth athletic and academic work). Examples, see:
- Delete a non-notable sportsperson. Linkedin and youtube are not reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is a strong point against notability. There are a number of academic sources that support inclusion in Florida academic circles, and at least one of those YouTube videos is a directly sourced news station video. If they aren't reliable enough to support specific claims, such as academic accomplishments, that's one things, but how is that ubiquitously indicative of non-notability? - Cam T| C
- Delete, non-notable, trivial "puff" piece. Fails GNG and no WP:RS citing. Kierzek ( talk) 18:15, 13 November 2017 (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.