Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Bean

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. bd2412 T 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bean

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

The subject of the article is borderline-notable, but there's a serious lack of sources for basic facts regarding his career history. There's not the basic level of coverage in multiple independent sources that would substantiate that the man is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed a BLP-violating section which was inexplicably restored. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... And I notified the person to let them know that it shouldn't have been restored. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I made some BBQ chicken. Thanks for taking care of that, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't share the chicken!? And now I'm hungry too... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one. Rewind your searches to last century, and you will find plenty of sources documenting the activities of this person as the "bung-buster". But for this century, the sources are mainly things said by this person, rather than things about this person. I have neither the time for, nor an interest in, an article rescue here. And I have my doubts that a proper account of this person's life and works can actually be given, simply because most of the things that this person has done since leaving the employ of the Football Association (including the things that are the subject of the BLP dispute that got this article first to AN/I and then to here) are only determinable by inference, from sources documenting other things, rather than from direct documentation. On the gripping hand, this subject is far better tackled as an article on (say) Football Association compliance officers than as a biography. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented as biography. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable football executive, and not even worth redirecting. Giant Snowman 11:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication whatsoever of notability. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - not even a borderline case; patently non-notable, failing WP:BIO spectacularly. --ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand into a proper article. Googling this link] makes it clear that he has been a very notable figure in English football. It just is that the artiel that we have is a nasty attack stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? That's just a searc for the name, most of the links are about different Graham Beans. Yes, the bung buster link is in there but there is nothing in there to indicate substantial coverage of anything particularly notable. He's just your bog standard FA suit, nothing more, nothing less. Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A general web search is very rarely the best way to find reliable sources or evaluate notability. We need to look at the sources found by the other searches here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was a notable figure in English football circa 10 years ago. A well known book by Tom Bower (Broken Dreams) largely centred on his investigations into alleged football corruption [1] [2] [3]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The third of those sources does indicate that there was some non-routine coverage of him, so perhaps my comment above of no indication of notability is not quite so valid, but I don't think the other two sourcers are that useful. The first only really spends a couple of paragraphs discussing his work whereas the second source is more about the FA than Bean himself. Would like to see much more like the third source to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name is not notable. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 05:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the news coverage in the article and the addition online sources found by Jmorrison. He's clearly been a significant one-man force against corruption in English soccer. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised at the number of vehement 'Delete' votes! Sionk (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improving, but with a bit of digging I'm sure there are more sources to be found such as this which would get the article to easily pass WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject himself wants to have this article deleted, but I believe the sources presented in this discussion is enough to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reply to Mentoz86 - He wants it deleted to remove "libel" (according to his message at the help desk, which i dealt with). The libel was the cyber-squatting claim, which was vague at the time, but which i rewrote and sourced better. It was one of just a small number of citations in the article and still is. The guy seems notable just about, but the article needs more references. Also Graham needs to be banned from the article since he can't edit neutrally and has a conflict of interest. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough here as compliance officer for the FA and adviser to Sir Alex Ferguson to pass GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 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.