Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Charlton (footballer) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Charlton (footballer)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV provided or identifiable. A previous AFD only identified passing coverage, though the article was kept on the grounds of WP:NFOOTY and the assumption the coverage could be found.

However, since that AFD no one has been able to add significant coverage to the article, and per WP:NSPORTS GNG is required to be met when notability is challenged at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing has changed since the last AFD 4 months ago. GiantSnowman 10:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that nothing has changed; per WP:NSPORT articles covered by it are required to meet WP:GNG, and despite the assumption at the last AFD that there must be significant coverage no one has been able to find any in the five months since, and unless such sources can be found we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments last time. As GS pointed out it was only four months ago since the last AfD, so this feels strangely disruptive on ppl's time to renominate this. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep didn't realise there was a timeframe since a previous AfD to improve the article or it will be deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The deadline is now, and it's up to you to prove the article has potential for improvement. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been 10 years. This just highlights how ridiculous the "we didn't have enough time" argument is in these AfDs: 10 years was plenty of time for some random local football historian to come across this article and expand it, or for regular football editors to find GNG sources -- but of course this didn't happen; the first AfD brought in 7 football editors who assured everyone SIGCOV must exist for this person, but still none was found over the course of the discussion despite several people searching; these editors had another four months to look into offline sources, but clearly didn't because nothing changed; and now at this second AfD we are again assured sources must exist, it's just finding them is still some hypothetical future editor's burden, not ours in the present. But if this "finding encyclopedic coverage for an encyclopedia subject" task is so herculean then surely the additional 2 minutes it takes to actually create the article is so trivial our future intrepid editor could also do that? The microstub is currently, by definition, not encyclopedically valuable as a standalone article, so it serves no purpose existing as such in the interim between now and whenever sufficiently many old documents are digitized and put online that keep !voters can finally ~~switch to insisting three sentences in in a contemporary match report is SIGCOV~~ be satisfied coverage does not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show a passing of GNG. This article has existed for 10 years, that is the time frame of providing adequate sourcing that needs to be considered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has anyone brought forward any sources showing GNG? I've checked the previous discussion and it seemed to lean on NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same user nominated this article recently, and it was a unanimous keep. To nominate it again so soon is an example of WP:Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and I recommend that User:BilledMammal be topic banned from AFD if he continues to nominate article for players that meet WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11#Pete_Vainowski we can safely discount !votes which only cite WP:NFOOTBALL. Also this guy made his three walk-on appearances when the English Football League was far from "fully professional" so doesn't in fact meet NFOOTBALL. Sadly he fails WP:GNG, which is the more important issue (really the only issue). If/when someone creates 1931–32 Liverpool F.C. season we might be able to redirect there. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find the first sentence of the !vote above quite callous all things considered; additionally, I heavily disagree with the rationale for deletion that just because it's been 10 years and no one has added a new source that proves there are no sources. All that said, it has been common practice to delete articles that skirt by WP:NFOOTY with only a few apps while otherwise thoroughly failing WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT#Q5, which makes it clear that "sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met", and GNG is not met here. Avilich (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been improved since the last nomination that was only four months ago. Renomination after such a short time period feels disruptive. NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no edits between the discussion being closed last time and being nominated again this time. Unless you are referring to the edits which added an infobox and a line saying He also made one appearance for the Irish League XI during the last discussion, which don't seem like a significant enough change to be defined as "improved" in the context of a deletion discussion? BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NFOOTY is a guideline, as is WP:NOTABILITY. We are invited to accept the guidance. Nothing is "required". So, the nomination is proper, the deletes are proper, the keeps are proper and any consensus remains to be assessed. The comment we can safely discount !votes which only cite WP:NFOOTBALL is entirely inppropriate and incorrect. Thincat (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a policy requirement, and NFOOTY is subject to GNG, which means that all "Keep per NFOOTY" vaguewaves should be discounted because they don't understand how the rules work. Avilich (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is a matter of policy that a reason for deleting an article is that it fails the notability guidelines. Hence the nomination and deletes are proper. But if an editor, after considering the notability guidelines, considers that the article does not fail, to say so and to recommend keeping the article is a proper contribution. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, although I believe that they should provide evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage, rather than asserting notability. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delreason 8 gives policy weight to the matter, which means that keep voters must provide verifiable evidence that the topic is notable. If they don't, their arguments should be discounted per policy. Avilich (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is a subguideline, the actual SNG is NSPORT...which says GNG is necessary to merit an article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The core principal of Wikipedia is Sigcov. We should not keep articles that do not meet this principal. This is not meant to be spoirtspedia, and so we should not keep articles based on a lone database, or otherwise not linked to actual sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 7 February 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.