Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (footballer, born 2004)

[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:SIGCOV, as everything I could find is either South London local press or directly from club websites. Anwegmann (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career, there is coverage out there such as this and this, does not need deleting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps drafitification? Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the absolute most. Giant Snowman 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 appearances as a professional with ongoing career Aren't we looking for WP:SIGCOV? The two sources you mention are routine coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per whats on the article, sources above. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov of him. The above sources are a routine match report and a routine transfer story. The "ongoing career" argument should officially go the way of NFOOTBALL. Articles are for things that pass GNG now not at some time possibly in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not be much to the article but satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Does it? Where is the WP:SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Robby.is.on, I didn't know I have to answer to you WP:BADGER? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course you don't. But it's not particularly constructive to state that WP:GNG are met when so far nobody has indicated WP:SIGCOV exists. In my experience, articles often get deleted when the assertion "Satisfies WP:GNG" is not backed up. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. @Robby.is.on MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – The two articles linked by GiantSnowman here are routine coverage. Of the five sources in the article three are database entries, two are from AFC Wimbledon and Woking, clubs the player has played for. So far, we don't have anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing as no consensus--without additional good arguments I think that this is where this will end up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source is a database, the second is an interview, the third is all of two sentences of routine transactional coverage, and the final two sources are more stats databases. The sources provided in this discussion are likewise just a few sentences about a couple of matches, and can hardly be called in depth or significant. Bottom line, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG in the article, and I don't see anything better elsewhere. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 03:10, 16 June 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.