Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Edeson

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. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Edeson

[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)

Does not appear to meet

WP:BLP1E. Almost orphaned as the only article which links here is List of Hull City A.F.C. records and statistics. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to pass
WP:GNG with articles such as [1] and made multiple appearances. I also don't have a good source for mid-90s newspapers but there is a clip in that article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely meets NFOOTBALL, likely meets GNG. Giant Snowman 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A one-event journeyman. It is rampant WP:BIAS to have articles like this on such a scale. We are not supposed to be Anglospherepedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I couldn't find anything to add to the Hull Daily Mail article, which has very good coverage. Since Edeson passes
WP:GNG but that isn't the case here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets NFOOTY and I assume we could find another source for GNG if we looked for contemporary coverage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes
WP:GNG too. Grailcombs (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2021 (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.