Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Atkinson (Olympic footballer)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 09:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Atkinson (Olympic footballer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played only 1 game for Great Britain in the Olympics, and for an amateur club. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be one of a few WP:POINTY changes following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Gray. I would recommend a bit of caution here, as the player was active a long time before digital media, the fact that there are not abundant online sources does not mean there would not be more in depth coverage elsewhere (I don't know enough about English football to know if/where). However we do know from one of the sources used that he played for England Amateurs (at a time when professional football was not as wide ranging as today), represented the UK in an Olympics and was a one-club man with Bishop Auckland, where he won multiple FA Amateur Cups. All of this leads me to suspect there might be significant coverage (probably archival) about this player somewhere. There are definitely male footballers who fail GNG but I don't think this is necessarily one. Further, aside from passing WP:NFOOTY, which I know the nominator is not a fan of, WP:NOLY provides a further (and gender-neutral) presumption that this player is notable. Is there enough here to rebut either or both of those presumptions? I suspect maybe not. Macosal (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All his achievements you brought are amateur achievements, and according to our good friend WP:NFOOTY, unless you're fully pro, that's not good enough. Regarding the Olympics, it was only 1 game and also WP:NOLY is a guideline. --SuperJew (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to iterate, I don't have a problem with WP:NFOOTY, I have a problem that it's disproportionate. --SuperJew (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a problem to me. But regardless, he passes WP:NOLY so let's focus on that for argument's sake (note he does pass WP:NFOOTY as he played for a national team and at the Olympics). So we presume he is notable. Can you show that he isn't? I'd suggest not. Macosal (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he only played one professional match, and only has one source which might be considered not-routine. --SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, this player is from an era before digital information. The fact you can only find one source is not a great indicator of notability as the sources about this player would not be searchable on the internet whether significant or not. Thus having a presumption is helpful here. In your WP:POINTY efforts you have stumbled onto quite a genuine WP:RECENTISM issue. Macosal (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while talking about WP:NOLY it's also biased - to be notable as a regular person you only have to compete in the Olympics, but as a disabled person you have to win a medal. --SuperJew (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NOLY, underlining that one of the purposes of such subject specific guidelines is to avoid recentism. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Olympian, he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NOLY, passes WP:NFOOTY. His notability is presumed unless demonstrated otherwise. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOLYMPICS. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY - competed at the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. Giant Snowman 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assumption that all participants in every olympics from 1896 on are notable ignores the reality of the rules, or often total lack thereof, for participation in the early days of the sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2017 (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.