Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Ball (writer)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Phil Ball (writer)

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

Article reads like a resume. The sources, many of which are links to nonfunctioning sites (dead links), are all works by the article subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 13:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BIO Jinian (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a notable author: a recent article in Times of India refers to him as a "football expert"; this BBC article refers to him as a "Spanish football expert"; his book White Storm: 100 Years Of Real Madrid was Book of the Week in The Independent Nov. 25, 2002; his book Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football was Book of the Week in The Independent Apr. 23, 2001; his book An Englishman Abroad was Book of the Week in The Sunday Times Sept. 12, 2004 Piecesofuk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's fixable and there is sufficient coverage to justify keeping it per at least WP:NAUTHOR and easily WP:GNG as well, if we were to tell his whole story. The article is indeed a mess at the moment, but it was first written in 2006 (most likely autobiographical) when Wikipedia notability guidelines were less strict. The bio of this notable football writer has historically also been the object of an edit war, because it had a "Controversies" section dealing with a problematic article he wrote for ESPN (since taken down) about Qatar's preparations for the World Cup and the human rights violations (you can find lots online, but to give you an idea, here is a 2013 article in The Big Lead). I would have thought there is a neutral way to mention the controversy and ESPN's apology, etc., without editorialising, but regardless the article is in dire need of an update from beginning to end (I just did a fix of the first couple sentences). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improving, not deleting; sources above show notability. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is a mess, as others have pointed out, but that does not negate the sources found that show strong notability. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2022 (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.