Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Neal

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Neal

[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)

Could not find WP:SIGCOV for this football player/YouTuber. The article has remained unsourced since it's creation over 10 years ago. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably weak keep wearebrighton.com described him as one of Brighton's worst ever players. [1], talks about the footballer turned driving instructor. [2], a little bit on where are we now. [3]. If you can collect sources for his football career, I'd say weak keep. Govvy (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a fan blog N, the second is meh as it is essentially recapping a youtube video (BLP1E?) and relies on a lot of quotes, the third is a fan database with literally one sentence on him N, and the fourth is two sentences in another fan blog N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. @Govvy:, I found 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 among other sources. He played for English Liverpool, one of England's most successful teams, made 12 appearances in fully pro English Football League, and has over 130000 subscribers on YouTube. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5 is almost entirely quotes/relating things Neal said N, 6–8 and 10 are impossible to assess as they're just blurry screenshots, 9 is pure NOTNEWS N, and 11 is a 6-word passing mention N. What do the newspapers.com images actually say? JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. The second source presented by user:Govvy is an obvious GNG pass. #5 from User:Das osmnezz has enough non-interview content to be borderline GNG at worst. And even without this, WP:NBIO states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. So there is enough here to keep. Frank Anchor 03:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The below references added by Beaniefan11 remove any doubt I may have expressed in my “keep” vote. Frank Anchor 16:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can access newspapers.com articles and there does seem to be enough for GNG – I've clipped them so everyone can see (@JoelleJay:): [4] (full-page coverage from the Liverpool Echo) [5] [6] (p2) [7] [8] [9] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was on the fence before but BeanieFan's evidence from Newspapers.com is hugely significant, to have entire pages in a newspaper about him is clear WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage seems sufficient now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage is now adequate. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: there is enough significant coverage to show evidence of notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.