Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendy Glackin

Brendy Glackin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm only seeing match reports that mentions this player as he has only played for two entire minutes from WP:FPL team in 2016-17 which doesn't seem to be enough time for this player to be eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and player is young with an ongoing career, and there's enough online sources out there to give him the benefit of the doubt re:GNG (search also under 'Brendan Glackin'). Giant Snowman 09:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we wait until notability is clear to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made an appearance in the EFL League One, shouldn't be deleted. WP:NFOOTBALL Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Victoryboy (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2019 (AEST)

Comment - May I ask he only played for two minutes in EFL League One so that isn't really enough time to deemed notable based off WP:FPL. HawkAussie (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been consensus to keep young players with ongoing careers, AfD/Tong Le a recent e.g. but more out there, which has yet to be rebutted via discussion so I favour consistency - though evidently many don't. R96Skinner (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 21 years and currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4 Keep votes compared to 2 delete votes, but the strength of the keep vote arguments are weak. Editors are reminded that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and where this is challenged, simply citing NFOOTY is not a valid argument for retention. Relisting to give editors voting keep time to support their vote with reference to GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why this was relisted. Passes WP:NFOOTY, I've added sources directly to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted because the sourcing issue for WP:GNG was never resolved, I believe. Passing WP:NFOOTY doesn't give it an auto Keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]