Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Myers

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. As noted by Liz in the relist, we delete or keep articles on the basis of sources that exist now, not sources that might exist later. Can be draftified or userfied on request to WP:REFUND for recreation once new relevant sources are found. Sandstein 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Myers

[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 significant coverage, all sources are databases or non-independent Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Young player who has recently made his debut, likely more sources will be available in near future. Mn1548 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are really arguing for here seems to be a draftification. We can't have articles that don't have significant coverage at the moment (WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTAL). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Professional NRL player who debuted and scored points (conversions and tries), sources present and can be added, a lot of other similar articles of young NRL players have less sources (e.g. Jesse McLean) ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see the point in deleting now and then re-adding when we have the end of year reviews in a month. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant sources. No independent significant sources can be found in the article, per below assessment, and no significant sources have been presented here. Closing admin should note that Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL so if other editors cannot find multiple significant sources covering the article, then it should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though most of them are very aware of this, the closing admin should also note that the outcome of the AfD is not based on Keep/Delete headcount but the strength of the arguments. Keeping an article because the subject might be notable in the future is not policy based. For the article to be kept, the subject must be shown to have received multiple sources of significant coverage. So far, none have been shown to exist so it doesn't matter how many keep !votes there are based on possible notability in the future and the article should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Alvaldi**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/fletcher-myers/summary.html		?	List of stats	✘ No
https://www.rabbitohs.com.au/news/rabbitohs-sign-fletcher-myers-immediately-until-the-end-of-season-2025	Team website	?		✘ No
https://18thman.com/players/fletcher-myers/		?	List of stats	✘ No
https://www.nrl.com/players/nrl-premiership/south-sydney-rabbitohs/fletcher-myers	League website		List of stats	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral here but I see hundreds of AFDs and we don't retain articles for subjects who might be notable at some future date. We judge by what sources are available today, at this moment and whether they can establish GNG. At best, if these sources don't exist, feel free to argue that the article should be draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet GNG, which is required for sportspeople. We also have CRYSTAL policy. None of the keep votes are based on PAGs and so should be discounted entirely. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This paywalled piece from the Newcastle Herald probably provides some SIGCOV, but I am struggling to find much else. JTtheOG (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of valid sources and evidence of notability. The keep !voters are basing the core of their argument on some iffy, speculative crystalballing, IMHO. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:38, 17 September 2024 (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.