Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Kerr


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pat Kerr

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

Fails WP:GNG. This player previously met the WP:NAFL SNG criteria of playing at least one professional match (Kerr played four), but this SNG was retired with WP:NSPORTS2022.

The article had five non-database references at time of nomination, none of which meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These are: a draft profile (WP:YOUNGATH); one passing mention in match coverage  (WP:ROUTINE); one passing mention of his being delisted  (ROUTINE); one fan wiki reference ; and one piece about his familial connections to other members of his football club which covers mainly his family and a little bit about his youth career  (WP:INVALIDBIO/INHERIT).

A Google search of 'Pat Kerr Carlton' has many hits, but mostly passing mentions in lower level match coverage. Given his professional career ended in 2019, the likelihood of future significant coverage of Pat Kerr the footballer is negligible.

Redirection to List of Carlton Football Club players is a valid alternative to deletion and would be consistent with other VFL/AFL players whose articles have been deleted. Aspirex (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To allow for further review of the sources presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Per last relist comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist, as per first relist comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, close to speedy. Nom fails to give a reason why this article should actually be deleted when a valid alternative exists. Nom also misrepresents not inherited. People aren't deemed non notable because an article mentions that they are related to someone. The Fox Sports article is good for GNG as is The Age and Herald Sun. There is also Herald Sun 1 and 2 behind a pay wall so I can't fully evaluate them. And maybe a bit in Code Sport. Plus bits like SEN. This is not as independent as we'd like but is close. Offline he's undoubtedly covered in Football annuals from 2018-19 and the like, a library search would be needed here. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What I see is three tabloid pieces from 2016 about a WP:YOUNGATH with a lot of puffery about his familial connections (which, you are correct, I should have just called it WP:INVALIDBIO, not INHERIT), and the rest of those references are very much WP:ROUTINE. Aspirex (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm satisfied with the sources Duff has provided, I'm not sure exactly what about them would count as routine or mere coat-tail riding. Yes, Kerr's family connections are played up as an interesting angle, but the coverage stems from his own status as an AFL footballer, not merely those connections. – Teratix ₵ 16:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per duff. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, after reviewing the sources presented, this is a clear case of satisfying WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this has been relisted so many times. – Teratix ₵ 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Speed keep – Per all above. Consensus cleary reached. Svartner (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (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.