Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendy Glackin


 * 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. Whilst WP:NFOOTY is technically met here, the consensus in this discussion seems to be that this is an outlier case in which that guideline is not a suitable substitute for WP:GNG - which does not appear to be met. Yunshui 雲 水 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Brendy Glackin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm only seeing match reports that mentions this player as he has only played for two entire minutes from WP:FPL team in 2016-17 which doesn't seem to be enough time for this player to be eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and player is young with an ongoing career, and there's enough online sources out there to give him the benefit of the doubt re:GNG (search also under 'Brendan Glackin'). GiantSnowman 09:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete we wait until notability is clear to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Made an appearance in the EFL League One, shouldn't be deleted. WP:NFOOTBALL WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Victoryboy (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2019 (AEST)
 * Comment - May I ask he only played for two minutes in EFL League One so that isn't really enough time to deemed notable based off WP:FPL. HawkAussie (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 4 Keep votes compared to 2 delete votes, but the strength of the keep vote arguments are weak. Editors are reminded that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and where this is challenged, simply citing NFOOTY is not a valid argument for retention. Relisting to give editors voting keep time to support their vote with reference to GNG
 * Keep - It has been consensus to keep young players with ongoing careers, AfD/Tong Le a recent e.g. but more out there, which has yet to be rebutted via discussion so I favour consistency - though evidently many don't. R96Skinner (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 21 years and currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure why this was relisted. Passes WP:NFOOTY, I've added sources directly to the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was relisted because the sourcing issue for WP:GNG was never resolved, I believe. Passing WP:NFOOTY doesn't give it an auto Keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG which superseeds WP:NFOOTY per Notability (sports)/FAQ Q1. The references in the article do not represent WP:SIGCOV needed:
 * 1. He graduated from Linfield Academy, so it makes it WP:PRIMARY as well
 * 2. Just a name drop.
 * 3. "Dylan King and Brendy Glackin were among this season's second-year scholars told they would not be getting professional deals...Glackin may not yet quite be physically ready.", not in-depth.
 * 4. Besides the fact that signing announcements are WP:ROUTINE, "Promising Northern Ireland youth international Brendan Glackin joined St James' Swifts yesterday...In a bizarre day of transfer activity, Glackin appeared to be staying at Carrick after the Taylor's Avenue club revealed the 19-year-old had agreed a new deal. But it later emerged that the former Oldham Athletic youth player had joined Ballymena & Provincial Intermediate League side St James' Swifts." Better than 3), but not enough.
 * My searches show similiar sources of poor depth (most of them bring match reports), simple failure of meeting WP:GNG.
 * 1) "Brendan Glackin: A 20-year-old forward who has previously had spells with clubs including Linfield, Oldham Athletic, Carrick Rangers and St James' Swifts, also Northern Ireland U19 international."
 * 2) "And Oldham scholar Brendy Glackin tweeted a picture of the treble winner gaining further experience with the club this week.".
 * 3) "But Antrim went one ahead eight minutes from the end when striker Brendy Glackin converted a penalty, which was given for a foul on forward Mark McKee."
 * 4) "19-year-old striker Glackin has recently returned to Northern Ireland after spending two years in England at the Oldham Athletic academy."
 * 5) "Brendy Glackin was impressive for Antrim as he made one and scored one for the home county...Glackin came to the rescue again and sent the keeper the wrong way from the penalty spot to ensure a share of the spoils." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Jovanmilic97. A banner case in the argument that NFOOTY is poorly calibrated and should not be quoted in these discussions. Rockphed (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a player, whose only professional appearance was 2-minutes almost 4 years ago, in a team at the bottom of the third tier, is a banner case - more like the exception that proves the rule. And despite the lack of good GNG sources, there's certainly no lack of references about his later semi-pro career, from reliable sources ... however, they appear to be routine. The question is, how much time does one want to waste, with several people researching and arguing borderline cases to death, rather than simply establishing a black line. Current consensus appears to be let's waste everyone's time ... Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – article subject fails GNG, per source analysis above. Without WP:THREE, or two, or even one, it's a delete. – Levivich 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Technically he meets NFOOTY, but one 2 minute appearance is stretching the limits. The appearance was years ago and it requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL to claim he's going to get additional appearances.  The fact that he doesn't appear to be close to meeting WP:GNG is the key point. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:V is a requirement; WP:GNG is a guideline for which there can be exceptions. A complete set of these articles can be written although some such as this would be not much more than stubs. Wikipedia will keep most of these, so can there be the occasional exception or would it be better to move football articles to a separate site (does one already exist or would a new site have to be created?) with a more clearly defined scope such as WP:NFOOTY has? Peter James (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think both. The encyclopedia should have football articles (prose, not stats, describing the most notable topics), but there should be a separate site that is the football almanac, with a wider range of topics, that could also be a complete statsbook. – Levivich 21:25, 9 October 2019 (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.