Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Neville


 * 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 certainly no deletion consensus Docg 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Neville Neville

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children. Fails WP:Notability Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets may be involved in this discussion. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/James brown1605. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Keep. I can find a few references to his activities as a football agent and charitable activities at Bury F.C.;  but really his notability appears mainly due to being the father of three sporting siblings Gary Neville, Phil Neville and Tracey Neville and, of course, being called "Neville Neville". Tonywalton Talk 12:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he's notable enough to get mentioned often in articles on the children, that seems good enough. Article moved from Neville neville to Neville Neville. Gimmetrow 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be mentioned frequently because of his name, not any personal achievements. - fchd (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notable only for who his kids are, and notability is not inherited ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NN is also involved with Bury F.C. (a former director), and has received quite a bit of coverage from the national media (see ). Not sure if this makes him notable though. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - he's only notable because of his name and who his children are. – PeeJay 09:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete being the father of two football players is not an assertion of notability. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probable delete. I don't think he ever played football and is only notable for his name, his children and being director at Bury F.C., the latter of which I don't think is worthy of a bio. Peanut4 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - county cricketer, director of a league football club - not to mention his high profile because of his sons and daughter - quick Google search shows as many sources as you could need. Each of the items of notability may or may not prove notability but combined they do.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He was not a county cricketer, he was a local league cricketer. And notability is not inherited from having a famous child or three.  So that only leaves being a club director - is every football club director inherently notable?  I think not...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think that anyone that has ever played a game (even just came on as sub) for the likes of Bury F.C. is notable??--Vintagekits (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still no answer to this Chris? I suspect it could be because your answer would be yes! Please confirm or deny.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we can the sarcastic tone for a minute? As it happens I hadn't noticed your comment being posted, that's why I hadn't replied.  And why is it so important to know my views on player notability?  Firstly, it in no way relates to this debate (which is not about a player), and secondly I don't see you challenging any of the other editors who made exactly the same point.  ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No sarcy tone here I assure you - it was a genuine question - which you have avoided! As for "why is it so important to know my views on player notability" - this is an AfD - its not a vote it all about opinions.


 * I for one would say that the chairman of a club (especially a high profile one) is generally more notable and/or important than say a player that has made a loan appearance for a club or a striker without a goal for the club! or a no mark keeper who came on with 4 minutes to go - shall I continue?


 * Finally - I don't see you challenging any of the other editors" - its not personal just just happened to reply to my comment. --Vintagekits (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, for the record I don't believe that any player who's ever played one minute of league football is inherently notable. But that doesn't in anyway impact on my view that being one of many board members at a club doesn't make one inherently notable either...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement about that then. However, I consider that due to the level of press coverage that NN has received - granted much because of his sons and his name makes him pass NN. I'll ad a few sources myself to improve the article. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep his notability can be justified by the following: 1. A number of sources available 2. A career in cricket 3.his relation to three sports players 4. His cult status amongst football supporters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.104.27 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, he has not had "a career in cricket" - he played local league cricket. - fchd (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But he is also the agent for The Neville Brothers and has gained notoriety amongst the media, partly for his amusing name, but also for his antics at the last world cup, where he was seen partying drunkenly with the WAGS (wives and girlfriends of footballers) in Germany (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392175&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5) and was also involved in a campaign to save Bury F.C from falling into administration (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/bury/1867131.stm) and this quote shows how he saved them from extinction: "Neville tirelessly organised supporters groups, gave media interviews, worked closely with the administrators, and finally arranged a deal which would ultimately save the Shakers from extinction. We owe him a huge debt." (http://www.buryfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/ForeverBury/0,,10422,00.html,) he is joined by his wife, Jill Neville on the board of Bury F.C to complete an extraordinary sporting family. I feel there is sufficient material and significance to keep this article. 86.142.104.27 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment His cricket career is merely non-notable; his relation to other sportsmen is not an assertion of notability; and his "cult status among football supporters" is hardly verifiable. And finally there's no source establishing enough notability for him out of his relationship to Phil and Gary Neville. WP:N is clear on this point. --Angelo (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

and his role in saving Bury F.C and becoming a director there? John Henry Davies (link below) has his own article merely based upon this, in this case for Manchester United, therefore shouldn't Mr. Neville? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies)86.142.104.27 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But his entry doesn't even mention anything to do with that for a start. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * but this discussion has! If it were updated, would it then become notable? 86.142.104.27 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Surely how notable someone is varies from reader to reader? I have no doubt that i will not have heard of some people that you consider to be notable whereas neville neville would be considered to be notable by a large number of people i know. The fact that someone has created a page for him and others have condoned it on this discussion page proves his notability. Just a thought but perhaps those people that know of Neville (ie football fans of which there are millions in the UK) aren't the type of people to come and fight his corner on these types of discussion page? His name is precisely one of those commonly quoted facts that people (like me) come to this website in order to verify. I think its ridiculous that such a public website like wikipedia can only have on it articles that everyone agrees with. Just accept the fact that while this article might not be pertinent to you it will prove useful to others and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.114 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that 86.142.104.27 has not made any other edits other than this page. See WP:SPA. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah mate I am such a noob! Don't hold it against me mate!86.142.104.27 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note first ever edit by the above IP editor ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick glance up the page reveals that pretty much all the people !voting to delete the article are members of the Wikipedia football project and therefore by definition are football fans...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i think you are deliberately misinterpreting that point, or do you seriously believe that the majority of avid football watchers participate in this type of discussion about someone's notability on pages such as this..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Comment, this probably puts it to bed - agent for two premiership footballers--Vintagekits (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment i have added the additional information and extra sources on the page. i think that the volume of secondary sources included in the article and available on the internet are proof of notability. agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, still can't see how being an agent for anybody makes them notable. Still Delete, getting stronger by the day. - fchd (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with part of what you say, but "getting stronger by the day" - surely you dont believe that - infact I would say its weaker by the day. I would challenge you to show how it is weaker. In truth I dont really care if it is kept of not so I am completely neutral - but if one thing comes out of this is that the level of notability for footballers needs to be readdressed.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just his position as a football agent that makes him notable, its everything in tandem that makes him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"getting stronger by the day?" Marktherufftheryder is right, it is the combined issues and the increasing amount of references that makes him notable. 86.142.104.27 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How can people dispute notability and say things such as 'he is only notable for his name.' Surely that statement is in itself confirming that he is notable regardless of the reason and that was before all of his other achievements were added to the page. Also since when is notability only conferred by 'achievements'? Wikipedia has articles on people such as Coleen McLoughlin and Paris Hilton whose 'achievements' are laughableMarktherufftheryder (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Tonywalton. --John (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, - the nominator states "Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children." - now that I have undertaken some work would he now agree that this is incorrect?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'm glad the references have been found but I'm not convinced that he's WP:Notable outside the context of his children. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Did his work at Bury FC have anything to do with his sons? Also although his agent work was for his sons the work is all of his own and is notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment None of this, either on it's own or combined, makes him even close to being notable at all. As I said before, my opinion of delete is getting stronger by the day. - fchd (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentYes, I know you have said that it is "getting stronger by the day" - however, you have failed to explain why. Remember this is a discussion not a vote. The majority of the "delete" !votes have been shown to be incorrect following the additional references that have been added to the article.
 * Finally, do you consider him more or less notable than the following current Bury "players" Cameron Belford, Domaine Rouse and Aaron Grundy. try and make your reply informative and cordial as once again this is a discussion not a vote.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - in my opinion, it's getting stronger by the day as the only things that can be found are non notable, despite people spending a lot of time looking. I haven't looked at the Bury players to check whether they'd made professional appearances or not, but (and again in my opinion), players are more notable than agents and/or directors. If there wasn't any players we wouldn't have a game, but the less said about agents and directors the better. - 10:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
 * Thats fair enough, all I was looking for is for you to rationalise your decision - which you have. I think we will just have to agree to disagree then. Also I wouldnt agree that a player that has made one appearance as a substitute is more notable than good ould NN.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the fact that article X exists on a non-notable (or potentially non-notable) topic does not give a free pass to another article on a non-notable (or potentially non-notable) topic (see WP:WAX), so arguments of "he is more/less notable than such-and-such an article which already exists" are irrelevant..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the guidance in "arguments to avoid" - It is doesn’t say that it is "irrelevant" it says that it should be avoided. And in this case it is not like I am comparing Hulk Hogan with Gerry Adams - the people I mention are comparable. - this is a direct comparison of two individuals at the same club - one ran the club, was the head of high profile campaign to keep it in business and is credited to some degree with saving the club (and that is ignoring his work as an agent and all the stuff/guff about his name and sons) - and the other has played one game as a substitute.


 * Looking at it for the layman's perspective - do you think "people" would be more likely to search for information on Neville Neville or Cameron Belford?


 * Like I said above, I don’t really care if it is deleted or not but it highlights the farce that is the notability criteria for footballers - and noting that I am a massive football fan and have created a number of football articles.


 * Maybe I need to do more work of the section about "save our shakers".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is not a case of inherited notability in the usual sense of the term. Usually, "inherited notability" would mean that if X is notable, then *anything* related to X would be notable regardless of news coverage in multiple sources. Neville, on the other hand, does have news coverage in multiple sources, even if the context is often his children. If one relative of some celebrity is mentioned in the news a lot, and not some other relatives, that's an indication the one relative is notable and the other relatives are not. Joe Simpson (manager) is largely known in the context of his well-known relative(s), but he is mentioned often in that context, and other relatives are not. Neither of these are cases of inherited notability in the normal sense of the term. The arguments about context are close to saying a person must be notable independent of that for which he is notable, which is impossible. Gimmetrow 00:03, 21 December 2007 (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.