Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malachi Sharpe (2nd nomination)
- 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 draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Complex/Rational 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Malachi Sharpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously deleted and since then there doesn't appear to be anymore significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. But being from United's youth sectors and called up by the Scotland national team, he tends to establish WP:GNG soon. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Playing for the U21 team would require lots of coverage, there just isn't enough here. Sources 4 and 5 sound like SEO sites, the rest appear to be blogs or primary sources. I don't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey,
- I understand that the article about Malachi Sharpe may currently lack sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. Before the page is potentially deleted, I wanted to kindly ask if you might have any suggestions or tips on how it could be improved or expanded to better meet those criteria.
- Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I appreciate any guidance you can provide.
- Kind regards, Editor 11927 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for not elaborating in nomination with relevant links. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT (in particular WP:SPORTBASIC) for establishing notability for the subject. The problem is generally a lack of independent significant coverage from secondary sources, noting that United In Focus would come under fan-site and therefore fails to contribute to this. CNC (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor Is United In Focus a simple fan-site though? Even if it focuses solely on United, this looks to be alot more than just a simple fan blog. It has a rather detailed editorial Policy and significant number of experienced journalists working for them. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's subjective, I agree with editorial oversight it's beyond a traditional fan site. At the same time it's nothing more than a website for fans, and also lacks the ability to be truly independent from subject. CNC (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, sport websites publish articles that appeal to the audience that they are targeting. Football sites appeal to the average football fan. This site seems to just narrow it down to the average Manchester United football fan. If the site is not run by the player/club/league etc. then it is independent from the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I'd categorise FC fan sites differently than football-specific sites like Goal.com or OneFootball (when not sync feed). It's not a coincidence that United In Focus is United specific, instead it's intentional. That said, given it's owned by GTV Media Group, it could well be considered independent in this case. CNC (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem with sites that are team specific rather than league or football specific as long as they are professionaly run with editorial oversight. I would also think it would open up a pandora's box to reject such sites because with the same argument someone could state that Goal.com is not independent of football related subjects because it only covers football specific stories. All that said, I'm not arguing that the subject is notable, just that significant articles from United in Focus should go towards WP:GNG. Sharpe would still need significant articles from other publications over some extended period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I'd categorise FC fan sites differently than football-specific sites like Goal.com or OneFootball (when not sync feed). It's not a coincidence that United In Focus is United specific, instead it's intentional. That said, given it's owned by GTV Media Group, it could well be considered independent in this case. CNC (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, sport websites publish articles that appeal to the audience that they are targeting. Football sites appeal to the average football fan. This site seems to just narrow it down to the average Manchester United football fan. If the site is not run by the player/club/league etc. then it is independent from the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's subjective, I agree with editorial oversight it's beyond a traditional fan site. At the same time it's nothing more than a website for fans, and also lacks the ability to be truly independent from subject. CNC (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply and the helpful info! I’ll look into finding more reliable sources to improve the notability of the page. Appreciate your help!
- - Editor 11927 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor Is United In Focus a simple fan-site though? Even if it focuses solely on United, this looks to be alot more than just a simple fan blog. It has a rather detailed editorial Policy and significant number of experienced journalists working for them. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for not elaborating in nomination with relevant links. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT (in particular WP:SPORTBASIC) for establishing notability for the subject. The problem is generally a lack of independent significant coverage from secondary sources, noting that United In Focus would come under fan-site and therefore fails to contribute to this. CNC (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Subject doesn't appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from his cousin. May just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify Subject has already gained significant coverage in United in Focus which I have argued above is a professionaly run site with editorial oversight and is independent of the subject. He does however lack significant coverage from other publications so draftifying seems to be the best course of action considering he likely will gain such coverage in the near future. Alvaldi (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. I'm not in favor of deleting because he's gotten some coverage from blogs. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Blogs are not reliable sources. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 06:40, 5 January 2025 (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.