Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Benham

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Benham[edit]

[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)

English businessman owns two football clubs. Sourcing patchy - blogs, passing mentions, coverage of clubs (notability not being inherited) and an interview in The Guardian. Notability not established - was sent to draft, banged right back into mainspace, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the sources cited are strong; they are just very poorly formatted, so they look like they might "just" be blogs (e.g. The Athletic which is owned by The New York Times). Bloomberg.com article mainly focuses on Benham's unconventional data-crunching strategy in turning around Brentford (so you could say it really is about him and his approach rather than about the club). Will take a look at fixing cosmetically, but this article will easily be expanded. IRL, his achievements and his impact on how football clubs are managed are huge. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG already with sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV sources. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources on page indicated it passes WP:GNG. Even after doing a quick search was easily able to find more articles that support the case of notability. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2022 (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.