Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Hadley


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Harry Hadley

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

Delete for lack of notability, almost no sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have only done a quick historic news search but found a number of references to support some of the article's prose, which I have just added. Despite only doing a quick search, some mentions such as this and this are more significant. Furthermore, this is someone who spent quite a number of years at a high profile club and played internationally, as well as managed in his later career. I'll try and find some more when I get a chance but what I have found suggests to me we can determine notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep just from what has added to the article and linked here, they pass WP:GNG. Then there is going to be more article out there, deletion shouldn't be used as a way to improve articles.—  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  22:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, and it indeed seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Article has needed sources for over a decade. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a few of more sources that cover his career in detail . I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. The original nomination was invalid and rather malicious, as the subject played football at the top club and international teams level. There are now ample references to negate ostensible reasons for nomination. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Clearly meets WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other sources mentioned by previous editors. Chetsford (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per sources found by Alvaldi. However, I strongly disagree with statements like seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE and The original nomination was invalid and rather malicious. It was an appropriate nomination, and there is no evidence that the requirements of WP:BEFORE were not met. The bigger issue is that these articles were created without demonstrating notability. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Playing football at international level for a top nation will always make the subject notable. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep clearly passes GNG, terrible BEFORE attempt by nominator.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (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.