Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Newland

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. Fenix down (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Newland[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)

Delete for lack of notability, unsourced claims. Single source article has needed more information for a long time, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was a WP:BEFORE done on this, did you think about cleaning up the article yourself before nominating it as per WP:GDBN, I mean from what I can see, there probably will be enough for WP:GNG, not only for his time playing, but also from going on to forming a goalkeeping school and his own business. It probably just needs sorting through the fluff pieces and finding the meat but putting articles up for deletion isn't the way to get them fixed. Few references found with a quick search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As NZFC has shown, WP:BEFORE not done, bad evil nom. Govvy (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, as NZFC's quick search shows. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Single source article has needed more information for a long time, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clearly notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources found by NZFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I'm not convinced by the sources found. The source from Slate.com is a trivial mention. The source from Greensonscreen.co.uk is a WP:SELFPUBLISH according its about section ("It is run by one person as a hobby [[..]]"). The nwcfl.com source is a primary source. The Winsford United F C Players books description says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.". Of the Liverpool Echo articles, two of them only mention his football career briefly, the one with his daughter getting a severe allergic reaction and the one is about his refusal to pay council tax. The third one is about him and his Just4keeprs brand and is probably the best source. If better sources are found, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an actual analysis of the sources shows that we do not have enough to jutify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. Giant Snowman 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided above, easily meets GNG. We need BEFORE to be performed instead of wasting everyone’s time. A thorough search, including newspaper archives, should be performed before nominating notable subjects for deletion. Jacona (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alvaldi. BilledMammal (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG, terrible BEFORE attempt.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 4 May 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.