Harold de Gruchy: This player was previously deemed notable under the WP:NAFL for having played one Victorian Football League game, but this SNG no longer exists after WP:NSPORTS2022 .  All references in the article at time of nomination are database, Holmesby & Main (where all players have at least a cursory entry for completeness - inclusion alone is not SIGCOV), or public newspaper death notices (notices only, not obituaries - again not SIGCOV).  A google search for Harold de Gruchy Melbourne shows up database and wikis only [7] .  Among those, the Demonwiki (Melbourne Football Club fan history wiki) [8] includes links to a total of two news articles which mention his existence as a footballer, and two funeral notices; the only descriptions of him as a footballer were to note in one sentence that he was from Cumloden College and that he did not have a good game in his sole game [9] – certainly insufficient description of the subject to constitute SIGCOV or contribute to the meeting of GNG.  1899-1901 newspaper search for "de gruchy football melbourne" shows a couple of routine references to playing school football for Cumloden College, but nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE and nothing which would exceed the requirements of WP:YOUNGATH [10] .  My conclusion is that multiple secondary independent sources do not exist and shall never exist.  If not deletion, then I am of the opinion that this article could be redirected to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s consistent with previous AfDs for similar situations, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Kemp .  Aspirex ( talk ) 05:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Aspirex ( talk ) 07:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I mean of course all the coverage simply focuses on his junior football, the sole game he played in the VFL and his death.  He died less than two months after his first VFL game aged 20.  Those are the only things the coverage of him could reasonably focus on.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also disagree that coverage in a specialised encyclopedia such as by Holmesby & Main does constitute (or at the very least contribute to) significant coverage.  I refer you to Wikipedia's first pillar : "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias , almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine).  Jenks24 ( talk ) 11:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s .  No coverage beyond routine birth and death notices and the absolute barest of mentions in match reports.  I've got the most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers and can quote de Gruchy's entry in its entirety: DE GRUCHY, HAROLD (MELB.) ― 1901, 1 game, 0 goals.  (b. 9 Feb 1881).  That's not significant coverage.  – Tera tix ₵ 11:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wow, a player who died in 1901 doesn't have a plethora of sources on the internet via a Google search?  How shocking!  Honestly, this is a perfect example of why the deemed notability SNG guidelines existed.  Considering redirection: does List of Melbourne Football Club players contain all the information in this article?  No and it shouldn't and therefore I object to redirect.  -- SuperJew ( talk ) 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps we should not expect many sources from a simple Google search, but the lack of coverage on Trove is pretty damning.  – Tera tix ₵ 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no coverage on a player who died right after making his top-level professional debut??  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Top level, but not professional.  The league in question was somewhere between amateur and unendorsed semi-professional at the time of his game.  But yes, I have found no coverage beyond routine mentions in match reports.  Aspirex ( talk ) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  I don't understand those editors arguing for Keep while acknowledging the lack of reliable sources.  I have to abide by consensus but this is not the standard that has been applied to other sportspeople in recent AFDs.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Nom fails to explain why this needs to be deleted and in fact acknowledges that alternatives to deletion exist.  We have here verified content found in a specialised encyclopaedia.  Yes maybe individual stand alone stubs for one game players is not the best solution and some form of team summary or list article is the best way of covering this sort of verified content of public interest but that does not require deletion.  Consensus for not deleting already seems clear here.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this AfD has been open three weeks and despite three keep votes, not one single example of WP:SIGCOV (let alone multiple examples) has been found to counter my original basis of nomination.  Aspirex ( talk ) 01:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (edit conflict) Comment .  WP:SPORTCRIT requires that significant coverage be in sport biographies in all cases minus exceptional circumstances (i.e. WP:IAR ); I don't think one single game played in 1901 would be an exceptional circumstance?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to to List of Melbourne Football Club players#1900s per Teratrix.  No significant coverage. -- 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:7C5D:8A:FDE4:6148 ( talk ) 07:44, 4 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect