Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Morton


 * 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. Secret account 05:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Alec Morton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has existed for nearly six years with no sign that it passes any of our notability guidelines. Article is about an amateur football player (from the pre-professional era) for whom I've searched on-line sources and only found one blog site that discusses (in two sentences) his career. Perhaps there are some off-line sources and the article can be re-created if and when some are found that would demonstrate notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, which outweighs any claim to footballing notability. Could consider a future redirect to 1929 FAI Cup Final if/when that article gets created. GiantSnowman 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with GiantSnowman PurpleMesa (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone please outline how the player "clearly" fails GNG? I don't see any evidence in this discussion that anyone has done any research? It seems to me that whilst the article is skeletal at best, that a player who appeared in at least one national cup final in a pre-professional era may very well be able to be able to fulfill GNG due to offline sources. I find AfDs like this to be quite unhelpful when the nominator essentialy concedes that they may pass GNG through offline sources, but apparently hasn't bothered to look for any, then the first comment (from an admin who really should know better) says it clearly fails whilst presenting no evidence to support this. Regardless of the subject's notability, from a procedural pov I think this discussion should be closed as "no consensus" and re-opened if necessary once some semblance of proper research has been done rather than a knee jerk reaction. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is simply not possible that I could search offline sources in Ireland about this individual (and I suspect that is true of a large portion of WP editors). I've done thorough searches of online sources and found nearly nothing (so I simply stated the possibility that offline sources may exist - but expressed the view that it would be far better to re-create this article if such sources were located). What else is reasonable to expect in this situation? The article has existed in this "skeletal" state for nearly six years! I find your view of BEFORE to be most unreasonable. Jogurney (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you think is unreasonable. You have admitted a possibility that the player might make GNG and you've also shown you have not made, for whatever reason, a full attempt to source the article. My comments in this discussion have been neutral, I have not said whether the article should stay or go. However I feel that as you have admitted that you cannot perform the work needed to see whether the sourcing could be done I wonder whether it was appropriate for you to talk it to AfD. I don't recall seeing any attempt to discuss the matter at WP:FOOTY and attempt to find Irish users who might be able to assist. I may have missed that thread however. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article pretty clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and in its present form fails WP:GNG as well. No prejudice to recreation if and when more significant coverage is located. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not meet GNG. Nominator appears to have made reasonable attempt at finding sourcing. Evidence needs to be presented that this person is actually notable. Eldumpo (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - not being bothered to try to improve it doesn't indicate it deserves to be kept. Clearly no one has demonstrated its worth, and that is enough to delete it since no notability has been shown despite a long time during which opportunities to establish notability have not been taken. Experience would suggest that should notability be shown, the article would be re-created at a future time. It's not Wikipedia's goal to have articles on topics which may be notable, but no one is quite sure. No indication that WP:N is met. C 679 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.