Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Urwin (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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't think additional relistings would settle the divide between those editors who believe sourcing is sufficient and those who don't think this is true. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Urwin
AfDs for this article:


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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2019, but kept, largely as a result of his League Cup appearance for Bradford City in 2014 under the old WP:FOOTYN guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Urwin

But here's the kicker: he never even played in that game. Soccerbase and Soccerway show he came on as sub for Mason Bennett, but the English National Football Archive shows that Mark Yeates actually came on. This makes a lot more sense as Urwin is a goalkeeper and Bennett is a forward. This tweet by Bradford City proves it: https://twitter.com/officialbantams/status/514506817209393153

Therefore this non-notable semi-pro footballer meets neither the current WP:NSPORT general notability guidelines, or the old WP:FOOTYN ones Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nonleagueapps (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is about all I find, nothing more than a roster report . Delete for not meeting notability criteria, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of sources out there given his lengthy non-league career, such as this and this and this etc. - all from a fairly quick Google search. you have not even got the correct sport in your search, let alone the correct player.  please reconsider given the sources available. GiantSnowman 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It looked like a ball sport, I'm not familiar with the differences... Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then, respectfully, you should not be commenting. GiantSnowman 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Non-league footballer with a lot of coverage in English media during his time with a number of different clubs. I've expanded the article, and will continue to do so later, but I am busy tonight so it will probably be tomorrow. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also will move to Matt Urwin once AfD finalised, as this appears to be the more WP:COMMONNAME. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been greatly expanded. It would be helpful if the editors advocating Delete reviewed the new content and sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per GiantSnowman and Davidlofgren1996. Player with ongoing career with sources. Article needs improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I'm seeing a lot of match recaps, interviews, and transactional/injury announcements, but not much in the way of significant independent secondary coverage. The best is the Telegraph and Argus piece mentioned above, but it's just a local interview interspersed with a few brief sentences of background facts. That's not enough to justify a standalone.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage. The pieces mentioned above do more than enough to qualify as secondary coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG with the WP:THREE sources provided above by GiantSnowman.  // Timothy :: talk  21:09, 12 December 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.