Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Burton

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Burton[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)

No evidence of any notability. First reference is a self-published book by the article creator, second are some statistics. No better sources found in GBooks or regular Google[1]. Fram (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. Fram (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agreed that there is no evidence of notability, at least not that can be found online. I agree that the self-published book is not significant coverage, not because it was published by the article creator but moreso because he actually isn't in the book. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Fram (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very easy call. No evidence of notability anywhere to be found. A self published book doesn’t count. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find any sources or coverage with reliability. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rider rode at the highest level in British Speedway (British League) for multiple teams. There are dozens of riders with wikipedia entries that have only rode at the second tier level of the time (National League) and it would be churlish to delete just one entry when a very informative set of biographies is being created for what historically was one of the most popular spectator sports in the UK. The references are not great, agreed, prefer to flag the article to find better references than delete it (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good reason to keep an article. All the other users involved in the discussion so far have failed to find any sources to support notability. If you think there are sources out there that we four have somehow missed, please provide evidence of that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 5225c. No prejudice against recreation if offline sources can be found. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:30, 17 January 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.