Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Brimmer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jake Brimmer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft move to draftspace as he may well be signed to a top club this summer and soon play senior football, salting is unnecessary at this stage for a 19 yr old Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you own a crystal ball? JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, but I don't see the harm in moving to draftspace considering he is supposedly a highly talented player with potential rather than an older player nearing the end of his career Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - My comment from the previous AfD still stands: fails WP:NFOOTY, but there is plenty out there to satisfy GNG. Sure there is a lot returned by google about a couple of free kicks he scored, but there are also these amongst others:
 * Potted history of the player on the FFA website.
 * Substantial interview with the player from local newspaper.
 * Significant article exclusively on the player from a national sporting magazine.
 * Polish coverage of the player.
 * Indonesian coverage of the player
 * Maltese coverage of the player
 * Regional level coverage that goes far beyond simple transfer reporting.

There is a lot of "look at this wonderkid"-guff and reports of his free kicks, but there is also plenty of coverage from a local, regional, national and international perspective that goes beyond transfer talk and provides in depth commentary on and interviews with the player. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fenix down above. Those saying "delete" have made zero effort to engage with the very high number of sources which clearly do exist about this player. The nomination itself doesn't even suggest that he fails WP:GNG. Looking at those listed above and those easily accessible via google it appears to me that he does satisfy GNG. Macosal (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It was clear in the previous AFD, that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the argument to keep in the last AFD is that he passed WP:GNG. And he still does. In the past AFD I raised two sources that were unchallenged one and two. Add in the ones above, and the keep argument is stronger than ever. And what's with the SALT from User:GiantSnowman for a nearly 2-year old article about a real person, that's never been deleted before? How does this come anywhere close to meeting WP:SALT criteria? Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as this similar AFD showed failing WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant if the subject passes WP:GNG. As Fenix Down demonstrated above this individual has garnered significant coverage and thus passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - He hasn't lost notability since last AFD, rather gained it. There's more than just WP:Routine information available, with significant information and independent sources available to warrant his article. - J man708 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (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.