Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Freyer


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Bill Freyer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable VFL player. The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. There are no references and the two external links are stat sites. The one note leads to a book entitled "The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers: every AFL/VFL player since 1897", which seems pretty useless for notability and remarkably similar to the aforementioned stat sites. IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ongoing crusade against the uncultured sportsmen. Clearly passed the stupidly deleted NAFL. Unclear why inclusion in an encyclopaedia is useless for the inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Nothing controversial and/or unverified. Can't pretend we have to be careful about BLPs because he died over 60 years ago. Funny how nom claims there are no references, did they even look at the page before nominating it. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Any VFL player should be notable, even as perma-stubs, as there are print encyclopedias dedicated to their existence and therefore they have been "worthy of note." Also has multiple references. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I've expanded the article with many sources from Trove, an Australian newspaper archive. Some are passing mentions but there's enough to clear GNG – I would single out these pieces    if we're looking for the best. I'm not really convinced the nominator did his due diligence here. When you're evaluating notability, it's not enough to look merely at the sources currently in the article. You have to thoroughly search where sources are likely to exist. And even though NAFL has been demoted from guideline status and no longer grants presumed notability, it remains a useful rule of thumb for when you should take more care to see what coverage is out there. – Teratix ₵ 22:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many SNGs were problematic, but NAFL is pretty spot on - if you played in the AFL/VFL, you are almost certainly wiki-notable, because sources will cover you. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? You think every single AFL/VFL passes Wikipedia's notability requirements? Even one-gamers? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps older one-gamers might not, but the competition has been covered so well for so long - especially considering playing lists have been pretty much fixed before the season starts - that it would be surprising to me if any failed, similar to American baseball and basketball pro leagues. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:35, 15 August 2023 (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.