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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn[edit]

Harry Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Please see the deletion review which closed as relist. The story is that this was deleted at AFD and recreated and then deleted under G4. The relist is to consider the new sources. As the DRV closer I am listing this as a procedural matter and offer no opinion on the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 09:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage - all of the sources are run-of-the-mill stories in local papers which do not cover the subject in any great detail) and also WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played or managed in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 09:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have to say that the Independent is a reliable national newspaper, meets significant coverage as you can see with my comment below and clearly independent of the subject, therefore appearing to meet WP:GNG. C679 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He still has not played or managed in a fully pro league, and, more importantly, the sources added are routine sports journalism, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if deleted, please move the disambiguation page Harry Dunn (disambiguation) to the then-vacant base name and update the incoming links. (Also, the GNG does not require most of the sources to be anything, nor does it disregard local sources; the topic needs significant coverage in independent sources.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've amended my wording slightly; they are WP:ROUTINE stories of the 'non-league manager loses job, end of story' variety. GiantSnowman 12:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Your claim is still about "most" of the sources. If there are few-but-sufficient sources to meet GNG, then it doesn't matter if there are a hundred more that wouldn't meet GNG on their own. Are there some of the sources you don't have access to? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK then, let's try a different route - which sources do cover the subject in significant detail, and aren't just about him losing/gaining a job? Those kind of stories are ten-a-penny in football. GiantSnowman 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you meant to change to "all" instead of "none" above, but that will be false, since the Times and Independent are not local papers. Citations 1 & 2 are not about losing/gaining a job. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs)

  Bah, having one of those days. But I'll repeat - which of these articles cover the subject in significant detail? GiantSnowman 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the sources I added (including non-local sources) address the subject directly in detail, so no original research was needed to extract the content, per the GNG. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said you used original research. If the "great detail" of the news pieces you have found has only been able to produce what is in the article then I have even less confidence in before in this passing GNG. GiantSnowman 13:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just restating the GNG criterion. I did not mean to imply I was defending myself against an accusation of OR. "Great detail" is not in the GNG. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Significant coverage" surely implies enough sufficient detail? GiantSnowman 13:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And they give sufficient detail for the information cited in the article to be included without OR. Being a cited stub is not a reason for deletion. If there is no great detail in the sources, there's no great detail in the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  We could create hundreds and thousands of articles on non-notable players/managers based on the news reports which say 'John Smith joined X in December 2003', 'John Smith joined Y in November 2006' etc. - that does bot count as "significant" coverage. GiantSnowman 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This has more than that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I can't actually get to the articles that have been added--they appear to be behind a pay wall. I assume those !voting above have access to the articles (as they comment on the articles' contents). Could they or someone else summarize their content and quote what (apparently highly limited) coverage there is on this subject in them? If too long, consider using the talk page of this AFD. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only see the sources with direct links. Without access to the others, and based on the titles of the articles combined with knowledge of sport's journalism from my 7 years of editing (almost exclusively) football on Wikipedia, it is hard to see any notability. GiantSnowman 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added URLs for two of the other sources, neither of which cover this subject in depth at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I've got a Times subscription at work so can get hold of the text of that one tomorrow and put it on the talk page as suggsted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for both! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Watch out for copyright violations, so try to stick with just the relevant part rather than the whole articles... Hobit (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is the first link, relevant part only...

          • "Dunn provided the managerial inspiration behind that Wembley win. Though he has endured a disappointing time of late, the County Durham man is held in high regard at the Turnbull Ground - and, indeed, beyond. "Harry's done a brilliant job," Graham Manser, the Whitby chairman, said. "We were in a shocking state when he came in 1996. The pylons had come down in a horrible north-easterly gale and we faced relegation to the second division of the Northern League. Since then we've had two promotions, we've been to Wembley, and now we're in the first round of the FA Cup against Plymouth with the whole town buzzing. Yes, Harry's done a tremendous job for us."

          • "He's done it while holding down a day job, too. Dunn works as a maintenance assistant at Sedgefield Community Hospital - which is presumably where Tony Blair would be taken for treatment if he ever fell ill within his local consituency. He was a brilliant midfielder in his playing days - Dunn, that is - a linchpin of the fine Scarborough non-League side of the 1970s. He played in the FA Trophywinning teams of 1976 and 1977 and also tasted victory against League opposition in the FA Cup."

          • "Indeed, Dunn scored in a 3-2 win against Preston that earned Scarborough a third-round tie at home to Crystal Palace in the 1975- 76 season. "That was the Cup run of Malcolm Allison and his fedora," he recalled. "They beat us 2-1." Palace - Allison, fedora, Peter Taylor, Alan Whittle and all - went on to reach the semi-finals, losing 2-0 to Lawrie McMenemy's Southampton at Stamford Bridge. Dunn went on to reach the third round with Scarborough two years later, losing 3-0 at Brighton after beating Rochdale 4-2 and Crewe 2-0."

          • "Whitby's manager has aged a little since those days..."

            C679 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        Apparently with the level of Times subscription we have at work I can only go back as far as 2000, so no dice on that one I'm afraid..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        Sources do not have to be online to be citeable, or to be used for GNG. That said, from the Times article: "Called in last week to retrieve the club's parlous position, Phil Staley, who left Accrington Stanley in October, and Harry Dunn, the long-serving manager who parted company with Bishop Auckland this season, have reconstructed the playing staff." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I am going to say delete, unless you can get better sources for GNG I still say it fails. Govvy (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain why you feel this way? Is the source trivial? Something else wrong with it?

Keep I don't know who asked this question above, but when I cast that delete vote there wasn't that many citations on the page. Since then someone has added 8 additional citations which pushes the article over the WP:GNG for a pass now. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - would this not pass as significant detail from a reliable source?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it clearly meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – some of the comments arguing a failure of WP:GNG are laughable. The individual in question has been the subject of detailed news reports in national newspapers such as The Independent which undeniably qualify as reliable sources. The reason for the coverage is no doubt due to this man's longevity in non-league football, for which he is clearly considered by such sources to be newsworthy. Admittedly some of the sources are routine coverage, but notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I would summarise that this is a classic tale of WP:HEY, where a number of editors have cooperated to justify this inclusion on Wikipedia since its deletion in the last AfD three weeks ago, when he was deleted for failing GNG. I finish with the assertion that this can no longer be considered the case. C679 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least one source one two sources (pasted above and linked above) have significant coverage of this person. We've met the WP:GNG with multiple non-trivial sources. And even if the rest are more run-of-the-mill and less biographical I think we're still above the bar of the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) some edits made noting the second source found by Egghead that I'd missed.[reply]
• Keep, I believe it meets GNG with the sources I added and the changes since. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article looks much better now and I am swaying towards GNG, however how sure are we the sources have not confused the two 'Harry Dunns' which played at Scarborough at the same time? After all, the article claims that the other Dunn was twice Scarborough's Player of the Year - yet ((Scarborough F.C. Player of the Year)) indicates otherwise... GiantSnowman 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough here now to pass WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep the article. It in my opinion passes WP:GNG. It has more information than does many of wikipedia's articles and it keeps links from turning red. This article is a start class article and not a stub. Also others may want to add pieces to this article later. Thechristiancontender (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I do not normally comment on Football, but his whole career has been a long way down the football hierarchy. I ma very dubious whehter we need an article on some one involved at this level. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added free-to-access links for some of the references, removed the Scarborough Player of the Year template, and delinked the Dunn that appears thereon. No doubt understandable confusion on the part of the template's creator, but this Dunn didn't join the club until 1975, so is unlikely to have been their PotY in 1970 and 1974. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a nice, although brief, article on an encyclopedic topic. As it happens WP:GNG is met with at least three qualifying articles about the "right" Harry Dunn (manager of Whitby Town).[1][2][3] Thincat (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (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.