Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flowerdew


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Whilst there appears to be general agreement that the article is struggling to pass GNG at this present time, that does not preclude further sources appearing in the future. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Mark Flowerdew

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

Fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search only found only routine coverage of results, and a couple of passing mentions in books. Flowerdew became a professional snooker player at a time when anyone could do so by paying a subscription fee (which hundreds of people did). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports,  and England. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've not really got the energy for another impassioned defence of one of my own articles, but that's probably just as well! Anyway, I am fairly sure he passes WP:NSPORT, especially in relation to cue sports. The article needs fleshing out, but how many others players who have been ranked inside the top 64, for example, have been found not to be notable? A fluke ranking event quarter-finalist I would understand, but by being ranked 50th, Flowerdew was an integral part (however rarely-mentioned in newspapers he may be) of the professional side of the sport in the mid-1990s. I would argue that how he gained his pro status is irrelevant in this case, because he did forge a career which made him worthy of note regardless. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, I'll be happy to vote in favour of deletion in future discussions! I do feel it would be a shame were that to happen, though. Montgomery15 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:NSPORT FAQ says that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." I've checked in the British Newspaper Archive as well as using a search engine, and not found any significant coverage. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Prob Draft - I'm satisfied that there are enough references in books to show that the player existed but not enough to verify the current content of the page. By that reasoning and WP:V the whole contents can/should be removed. I suspect there are snooker magazines that maybe have more coverage, but until we have verified content we can't say anything about him. JMWt (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. With no existing references and my own search showing nothing beyond results and WP:ROUTINE, I see no way to argue that this page meets WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify. It seems fairly probable to me that various snooker-related paper sources may have more and sufficient material about this subject, but it will take someone with a collection of, or ready access to, such periodicals to do the work, and this might not happen in a timely fashion. I don't think this has enough GNG sourcing to remain in mainspace, but I don't see any need to outright delete it when there's a fair chance of its improvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before 1991, when the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association opened membership to anyone who paid a fee, it was likely that a new professional would get at least a paragraph in Snooker Scene; in the late 90s, the Benson and Hedges Snooker Yearbook would generally also have brief profiles on each player. The November 1990 Snooker Scene reported that there were 443 new snooker professionals; in a monthly magazine with only around 32 pages, obviously there was not going to be room to provide in-depth coverage of all of the new intake alongside all of the other snooker and billiards news and reports. Cue World had already been merged into Snooker Scene by that point, and from the issues of Pot Black I have from around that time, it seems unlikely that they would have given any more coverage than Snooker Scene, despite their higher page count. Similarly, as 401 professionals including Flowerdew lost their status at the end of the 1996-97 season, it was unlikely that all would receive much coverage at that point. The British Newspaper Archive is often a fruitful source for coverage of snooker players, especially from local/regional press, but I didn't find anything substantial there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:10, 12 November 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.