Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Mellor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a footballer who made one appearance in the English Fourth Division (in the last match of the 1979–80 season). The only online coverage is routine (i.e., database entries), and there is more coverage of his personal troubles than his footballing career (e.g., there is a single sentence in this coverage of the 1979–80 squad). Although it appears that a single appearance in the English Fourth Division creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league (though the claim that the 4th division was a fully-pro league in 1980 is a bit dubious) doesn't warrant the presumption if the article comprehensively fails the GNG; as this article does. Jogurney (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Football League players receive lots of coverage, and given this player was 40+ years ago I imagine it is all offline. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be offline sources about him, but in the twelve years since this article was created, we have only been able to produce two sentences about his career (all of which is sourced to a single online database). I think the time has come to remove it, and if someone has access to those offline sources, I would have no problem if they re-create it. As it stands, this article adds so little value. Jogurney (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can cite some actual coverage there is no reason to keep the article. Verifiability means we find the sources then create the article not the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of NFootball the article heavily fails WP:GNG and I don't see a how it can be improved at this stage, unless someone wants to put it in their sandbox to investigate and work on I suggest this be deleted. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added some additional content relating to his (rather sad, it seems) later life........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of the coverage of his post-footballing career is SIGCOV, so the article is still well short of GNG compliance. Do we really think there are many offline sources covering a person who made a single appearance in the Fourth Division? (I have serious doubts.) Jogurney (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and User:Johnpacklambert. Fails WP:GNG as there is no claim or verifiability of notability. The subject cannot pass NFootball, that is not an exception to GNG, but an extension. Otr500 (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, and a claim of notability. GNG isn't more important than the encyclopedia, and the amount of effort to keep the set of articles incomplete will eventually be more than it would be to complete it. Peter James (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom; unless the offline sources are cited and verifiable, it's an obvious fail of NFOOTY and GNG. Mightytotems (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He clearly doesn't fail WP:NFOOTBALL, as he played in a fully professional league, which is what WP:NFOOTBALL requires. So that part of your argument is false -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree with you that the article satisfies NFOOTBALL. As I stated in the nomination, there is a longstanding consensus that minimal play (e.g., 1 match) in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL when the GNG is comprehensively failed. Jogurney (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2020 (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.