Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleri Morris

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 keep‎ of the slightly weak variety, but keep nonetheless. Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleri Morris[edit]

[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)

No indication of notability; fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 due to lack of in-depth sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. –dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify some promising articles in the Illawarra Mercury, not quite at GNG level yet but an active AFLW player who should accumulate more coverage as her career progresses. – Teratix ₵ 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has two articles about her in the Illawarra Mercury, as well as a few profiles. Also an active player who is playing well and will generate more coverage for sure. --SuperJew (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are in-depth about her exclusively, so I'm not sure how she fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. as she clearly has that. --SuperJew (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see much coverage in sources apart from the two mentioned above, but since they both directly address the subject, I think they're enough to satisfy relevant notability guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Contains no secondary and independent sources. ––– GMH Melbourne 11:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false, you might dispute whether the sources are sufficient to clear GNG but to assert no such sources are present is wrong. – Teratix ₵ 13:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is my bad, because a couple of the sources led to dead links and paywalls, I brushed over them. ––– GMH Melbourne 23:16, 19 October 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.