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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McParland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted previously and redirected but that was undone recently and the article recreated. This then putched up at DRV but the discussion really needs to be at AFD. So here we are. I'm procedurally listing as I closed the DRV, so am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, he has not played or managed in a fully professional league. Beatpoet (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable since it has unreliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article sources include the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Liverpool Echo, none of which would be regarded as unreliable? AllyD (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the daily mail most certainly is not a reiable source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The problem is not with reliability but with notability. I do not think he has held a high enough position in footbasll management for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2015 (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.