Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Peet

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. The consensus is that sourcing is sufficient (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Peet

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage, coverage is passing mentions or local media reports. Coach = not automatically notable. Sent to AfC, declined, brought back to mainspace but still problematic - otherwise I'da just tagged it for notability... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby league, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I did some work on this article, including the move to userspace. I do believe it needs some work, I just wanted to get it to where I thought it could stand up as an article. A few points I would make:

I'm not entirely sure an AFC decline from October 21 (when he was just appointed Head Coach, and had barely any articles about him anyway) should be held against the article. In my personal opinion it bears no resemblance to the article it was then.

I'm not entirely sure what's a 'passing mention' about the sources that were given either. Yes, most of the sources are local coverage, but that's purely for the more detailed claims in the article. Would something like this have been more 'acceptable'? Or this? Perhaps this one?. There's also mentions and information elsewhere too. I have very little experience with page creation but I'm not sure how a trophy-winning coach at the top level in rugby league is being considered for deletion. Better sourcing needed possibly? That I could understand. If I'm honest this feels a bit of a rush to delete something that could be worked on. And yes, I include myself in that. Porterjoh (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improving, but there is clearly much more coverage now compared to last October when he was virtually unknown. The recent cup win removes any doubt about his notability. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep - He was notable on 11 February when he took charge of Wigan as head coach for the first time in the Super League.Fleets (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for clearer consensus on whether sourcing is sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs improvement from its current state, but the sources are there as shown above. Frank Anchor 13:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources provided above are good. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2022 (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.