Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Bradshaw

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 WP:SNOW – Reliable sources have been located and added rather quickly after nomination. WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed, and any admin should know that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Bradshaw[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)

Delete for lack of notability, few sources. Article has needed sources for over a decade. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to references added by Alvaldi they pass WP:GNG. I feel deletion shouldn't be used as a way to improve articles.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What kind of nomination is this? This is turning into a joke now. An admin failing to perform any kind of WP:BEFORE should be super WP:TROUT'ed. Govvy (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this what we're going to see now that SNGs have been abandoned, biographies for England international footballers with hundreds of Football League appearances being nominated for deletion? I genuinely wonder what will actually be left of this encyclopaedia in a few years time. Subject is obviously notable and meets the GNG, as is now clearly demonstrated by Alvaldi's expansion of the article. Sigh. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, and it indeed seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Article has needed sources for over a decade. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now clearly demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Lack of notability?? He has over 100 apps for Arsenal and has played internationally. GNG and WT:FOOTY both passed easily. I am very surprised to see this coming from a admin with 16 years of experience. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the most ridiculous nomination I have ever seen. A full England international has a "lack of notability"? Seriously? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clearly notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One might be inclined to deduce that there was some campaign to seriously reduce the number of football related articles. I hope not. Obviously notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the subject passes WP:GNG with the sources now added to the article. While a cap for England and over 100 of Football League appearances do not in any way mean that a person is automatically notable, they can indicate a higher chance of the person being so. And that seems to be the case here as Bradshaw is continuingly referenced in the sources as one of the best full-backs in the country during his time. Alvaldi (talk) 15:10, 28 April 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.