Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Delaney


 * 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. One "keep" editor is now blocked as a sock and the other's argument appears to have been rebutted.  Sandstein  09:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Brad Delaney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the previously held criteria and is a solid article.Fleets (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It clearly fails the current WP:RLN guidelines; regardless of whether you agree with them or not, this is the established consensus. All of those sources are routine news and match reports, and would not satisfy the GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your use of the routine link. Per GNG the articles show "Significant coverage", by addressesing the topic directly and in detail. They are "Reliable" as they are almost uniformly divorced from his current club. As before the "Sources" are almost entirely secondary sources, and as such provide the most objective evidence of notability. Again as before being largely newspaper publications they are "Independent of the subject" with the sources being many & numerous.Fleets (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions in match reports are not considered significant coverage. The only source that would probably be considered significant is this one, but given the story is on a blog website, it can hardly be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from by using Bill Clinton's band, but you are using an example that would be related to a jazz band that would be a handful of individuals. A breakdown of 30 plus sportspeople on a rugby league field would see it very hard to give a full breakdown of an individuals performance, without newspaper articles turning into essays. As before the sources are both wide-ranging and has ten times the number of sources of the likes of Leroy Cudjoe. Whilst I would not equate the pairs notability, I do stress that Brad Delaney did meet the criteria that was in place at WPRL at the time of the articles creation, and that there is work to update the notability for rugby league currently underway. Within the current wording there is also the flexibility to argue that he has played in the Challenge Cup against a SL club, and with the loose wording he qualified on his debut match.Fleets (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to meet RL notability as has appeared in Challenge Cup match. Keith D (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Challenge Cup is not a fully professional competition. Appreciate the wording of RLN could be clearer, but it is meant to only apply to players who make cup appearances for a Super League team. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor is the FA Cup, but back to the Challenge Cup. That is one of the many details that I am working upon to bring the existing RLN up to scratch.Fleets (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's accurate analysis, fails general and specific notability guidelines. Cavarrone 12:15, 31 October 2016 (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.