Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin Minter

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Minter

[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)

Perhaps one article from the Derbyshire Times that may satisfy GNG but not much else. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I agree with this nomination, this is a terrible case of cite overkill of nothing more than WP:ROUTINE sources and useless sources. Govvy (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Derbyshire article plus the rest combined paint a picture that this passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might paint a picture but it's of poor quality. Simione001 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] (100000+ views), among many more sources, including many more YouTube and podcast interviews. Clearly significant figure in non league football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some OK, but others are from his club. Not enough in total. Giant Snowman 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an of the sources I listed above are from the clubs he played for. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: It seems you did a better job of finding the sources there, it's just borderline for me. Could be a weak keep, however my vote after some review of overall is basically will sit at abstain which is basic no-consensus vote, which is due to a degree of notability. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice mix of primary and secondary sources, especially for a player at his level.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not acceptable for measuring notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [7] is ok, but has a lot of primary aspects ("Staring down the camera lense [sic], Melvin Minter speaks with a tone...") and is in a small-town paper by a reporter exclusively dedicated to covering Chesterfield FC. Local sources should be assessed with care, and I don't think this writeup has the distance from its subject that is needed to produce an NPOV bio. [8] seems to be an interview/transaction coverage, but I can't access all of it. [9] is an interview in an official Harrogate Town AFC program booklet, clearly not independent, N. [10] is a This is Local London "young reporter" contributed essay, not an article by a staff reporter, N. [11] is a blog post from a non-independent body, obviously N. I'm not seeing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good mix of primary and secondary sources. Keep Cinnabon66 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are new editors getting this bizarre argument? JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning delete, but I don't see it as clear yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above sources do not provide enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. I agree that the Derbyshire Times source is reasonably good, but not enough. The other sources are trivial / routine. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a lot of non-independent and unreliable content being discussed here and incorrectly used to support notability. Joelle's source assessment appears correct. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 10 March 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.