Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Burns (footballer) (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Mick Burns. That other article about the same man is in better shape. Sandstein 23:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burns (footballer)[edit]

Was deleted as non-notable a few months ago, and right now is very short. Clark89 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of material deleted via discussion. There is no evidence the person has actually played in the league yet.--Boffob (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he plays for the team, fair enough, improve the article. However, neither [1] nor[2] mention him, so delete. Emeraude (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy: the deleted version was altogether different from this. However, there's no demonstration of notability, of the truth of the article, so no reason to keep this. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguments, but almost more importantly, the person who made the page didn't even take the time to write a proper sentence!!! Firebat08 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is perfectly okay that it was created with less than a sentence (policy says be bold, and they are a newbie too), it's that we don't have anything here to work with, anything that might be worth keeping. Clark89 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he still fails WP:ATHLETE for the same reason as the last deletion, i.e. has not played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, that is a nothing article. Who is it? What's the reference? Gawrsh...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no info contained or proof he has played a professional game. Skitzo (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I am not sure who the original article was about so I have rewritten it about a notable footballer, of the same name, who meets WP:Athlete having played in a fully professional league. Smile a While (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note the change of content since the previous, wholly correct, delete!votes. Smile a While (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - article is now about notable footballer; this is no longer the same person who was subject of the earlier AfD. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bio that has been added already exists at Mick Burns. Tassedethe (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that would simply be a redirect then. Especially as his fullname is "Michael Thomas Burns". Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if he is known as Mick Burns then it should stay at that name, as WP:COMMONNAME would apply. This reference is much more authoritative than the brief references on the Michael Burns page. He is also referred to as Mick Burns on this PNE website and this Newcastle website. Tassedethe (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that Nfitz was suggesting that Michael redirect to Mick, not the other way round.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops... yeah then that would be fine.Tassedethe (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (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.