Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruebyn Richards

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. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruebyn Richards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

British TKD competitor currently ranked 38th [1] and he made it to the round of 32 at the last world championships, but I don't believe either of those is enough to show notability. ALso lacks the significant coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Don't believe he meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:MANOTE. The European championships are not the highest level, any more than those Iranian wrestlers were notable for medaling at the Asian championships (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh). Coverage is routine sports reporting and fails GNG.Astudent0 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see is routine sports coverage and it appears his highest ranking ever was 28th. That was right after the 2013 world championships. Currently ranked 2nd among British TKD competitors (29th overall) in the Olympic rankings so he has a shot at making the 2016 Olympics, which would clearly make him notable, but assuming he makes the 2016 Olympics is a leap of faith since only 16 competitors qualify. I have no objections to saving the article in user space pending future results. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 30 May 2015 (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.