Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor (2nd nomination)

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. There is consensus that the sources presented are not sufficient to establish notability. Aoidh (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Mellor

AfDs for this article:

[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)

G4 was declined with the rationale that the decision of the prior AfD was based on a deprecated notability criteria. However, it was deleted due to failure to meet WP:GNG, which to my knowledge has not been deprecated, although several of the delete !votes also mentioned NFOOTY, which has. The original nomination, which still holds true, read: "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." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this entry might be of value to local interests. However for the reasons stated by One5969 above I agree that this entry does not meet GNG or an SNG in their present state. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources like [1] among others. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through those sources that Das referenced, and some are significant - and there's more than enough to meet GNG in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner - a surprising amount. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally sources on the article... Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Huddersfieldtown5: You'll have to forgive GiantSnowman, he has been acting like a bot at AfD for a long time and he always posts a generic comment like that. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where is the significant coverage? There is none. Giant Snowman 20:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand why this was recreated, it clearly didn't pass WP:BASIC last time, it still doesn't. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was recreated because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? In my view it failed GNG last time, fails this time too. At best, a name on a list of 1 to 25 caps for the club would be best. Regards Govvy (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to be removing all footballers that played less than 25 games? Or just this one? Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BIO, per nom's source eval. // Timothy :: talk 07:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that the English Fourth Division wasn't fully professional is complete nonsense.

You seem to have a problem with this one article despite there being literally 1000s of Football League players who have Wiki pages but played barely any games. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that the English Fourth Division wasn't fully professional is complete nonsense.

You seem to have a problem with this one article despite there being literally 1000s of Football League players who have Wiki pages but played barely any games. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional status is irrelevant. Unless multiple reliable, independent sources are found discussing Mellor in significant detail, the article should not be kept. For example, if there is a newspaper or book that has multiple paragraphs of text about Mellor, we can look to keep this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tried something novel, and tried to improve the article, adding several references. There's more than enough coverage in the Huddersfield Examiner of his career to count as a GNG reference - the April 11, 1978 and June 12, 1978 articles in particular. Articles from other publications are quite brief, but going through the British Newspaper Archive, between the Hull Daily Mail and other brief mentions that I've not provided of his convictions for various drinking and violence charges, especially attacking a policeman in the 2010s, there's a case (barely) for notability. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Huddersfield Examiner counts as a single source towards establishing notability. The Hull Daily Mail is a mention. Other sources are database/lists. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rupples (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (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.