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 redirect to
List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). It seems pretty obvious given this individual played once for Bradford that the difficulty in finding sources is as much to do with the fact that they probably don't exist at least as much as the time he was playing. Nonetheless a plausible search term in itself, so a redirect seems appropriate.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG: almost nothing is known/knowable about this individual, who may never have even existed (it is possible he is a typo in a team list). Although WP:NFOOTY in its current formulation pretends that all
Football League players have always been
fully professional, this is demonstrably not true. In any case a listing in an obscure stats compendium falls ways short of the "significant coverage" required by WP:N.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
GiantSnowman: not wishing to be a dick, but can I ask why in this AfD you said that a player with just one league appearance and no evidence of passing GNG should be kept, but in
this one two days ago you essentially said the exact opposite......? --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or possibly Redirect to the list of Bradford City players with 1-49 league appearances, as suggested above. Even if there might be something on the British Newspaper Archive, it most likely wouldn't be enough to confer notability on this very minor player.
RobinCarmody (
talk)
23:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and/or redirect, this is a non-article as it stands, and I think it can safely be assumed that football got a lot less detailed coverage in 1911 than today.
Geschichte (
talk)
21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect per suggestion, although, how many people are really going to lookup a guy who played one game and 99.999% of the football community have never heard of! :/
Govvy (
talk)
13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The article can be created based on presumed notability but still faces the same scrutiny as any other article on Wikipedia. I, myself, have used the argument that a lack of historical data should be considered in the cases of these players, biographies, sports and events included. That was deemed not to hold water and I understand why. The intent is to hold subjects to the letter of the law. We can not differentiate and all articles should be treated equal. As such, if it does not receive SIGCOV in reliable and independent sources then it does not belong as per the current notability guideline. If that changes in the future then the article and many more thousands will be recreated I am sure. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk)
15:10, 11 January 2021 (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.
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 redirect to
List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). It seems pretty obvious given this individual played once for Bradford that the difficulty in finding sources is as much to do with the fact that they probably don't exist at least as much as the time he was playing. Nonetheless a plausible search term in itself, so a redirect seems appropriate.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG: almost nothing is known/knowable about this individual, who may never have even existed (it is possible he is a typo in a team list). Although WP:NFOOTY in its current formulation pretends that all
Football League players have always been
fully professional, this is demonstrably not true. In any case a listing in an obscure stats compendium falls ways short of the "significant coverage" required by WP:N.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
GiantSnowman: not wishing to be a dick, but can I ask why in this AfD you said that a player with just one league appearance and no evidence of passing GNG should be kept, but in
this one two days ago you essentially said the exact opposite......? --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or possibly Redirect to the list of Bradford City players with 1-49 league appearances, as suggested above. Even if there might be something on the British Newspaper Archive, it most likely wouldn't be enough to confer notability on this very minor player.
RobinCarmody (
talk)
23:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and/or redirect, this is a non-article as it stands, and I think it can safely be assumed that football got a lot less detailed coverage in 1911 than today.
Geschichte (
talk)
21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect per suggestion, although, how many people are really going to lookup a guy who played one game and 99.999% of the football community have never heard of! :/
Govvy (
talk)
13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The article can be created based on presumed notability but still faces the same scrutiny as any other article on Wikipedia. I, myself, have used the argument that a lack of historical data should be considered in the cases of these players, biographies, sports and events included. That was deemed not to hold water and I understand why. The intent is to hold subjects to the letter of the law. We can not differentiate and all articles should be treated equal. As such, if it does not receive SIGCOV in reliable and independent sources then it does not belong as per the current notability guideline. If that changes in the future then the article and many more thousands will be recreated I am sure. --
ARoseWolf (
Talk)
15:10, 11 January 2021 (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.