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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Milliner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a few more references up to 2017, which will allow some improvement to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be sufficient sources on him if one clicks the links at the top [1], [2], [3], including this article which calls him "one of Queensland’s most decorated match officials": [4]. SunChaser (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has been a professional referee at club level for 9 years, and at international level for 4. As the two above !votes show there is sufficient coverage to back this up and demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage appears to be mainly routine sports reporting--that he was the ref for this game, he made a bad call here, he got hurt there, or he's mentioned in a list of referees. Being one of over 3000 FIFA international referees doesn't seem encyclopedic and being a one of a state's "most decorated officials" doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. I also didn't see his name on the current list of FIFA officials[5]. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. There does not seem to be enough to pass GNG or NSPORT. Dino monster (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notability for own article. His big accomplishment in article header wasn't entirely his own doing and is cited with a primary source. Google search turned up multiple doctors with the same name, aside from mundane match reports. Fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some sources confirm that this personality meets Wikipedia standards--IamIRAQI (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming you mean the ones already in the article, the first mentions Millner only once, among a cattle call of other referees at the end. The second is a puff piece that is now a broken link redirecting to a paywall, and the third is a match report in which he's not even mentioned. It's nowhere near enough in terms of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I held off voting until now because I was hoping someone would produce the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Since nothing has changed since my earlier comment, I'm voting to delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2017 (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.