Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Burton (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 draftify where this can be incubated and improved as Burton attains more playing time. While there isn't a strong consensus that he doesn't ever deserve an article, those arguing KEEP did not provide information beyond the deprecated NFOOTY. While this doesn't necessarily require AFC before restoration, I'd imagine a quick return to mainspace would result in G4 so suggest time in draft space for coverage to appear. Star Mississippi 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Burton (footballer)[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)

Although the player has twice represented Tranmere to scrape past NFOOTY, I don't think there is sufficient coverage to merit an article at present. It is a TOOSOON case. The best option may be to draftify. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY and - also meeting "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional." having played in the English Football League a fully professional league. There is no reason at all for this one to be nominated as an AFD - has three FL appearances, one FA Cup appearance and 2 also in the Football League Trophy, where he appeared in the 2021 competition final for the club vs Sunderland. Zanoni (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zanoni WP:NFOOTY is a guideline on players likely to be notable, not an absolute guarantee that someone is notable. Don't see that they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, yep get this has crept in - but frankly it's still contested. This player has played three times in the Football League, and a Football League Trophy final as well. There's loads of articles out there with someone who played in EFL matches in the early 1900s with one, two, three appearances yet they are also notable - often as they played for clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham etc. Basically these deletion nominations are made by those making decisions on *who they think* are notable Zanoni (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify doesn't currently meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY, but only just due to only playing two league matches. Rillington (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rillington: - three league matches...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, ongoing career - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and is 20 years old with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per nom. Subject, as far as I can tell, lacks WP:SIGCOV which would be required for a standalone article. Those noting he meets WP:NFOOTY are failing to address the lack of WP:GNG, which is required of all articles. Consensus on this topic per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES has previously resulted in delete. That said, the subject does appear to be fairly young in his career and will likely meet inclusion criteria in the future so pushing to draft makes sense now. The only coverage I can find looks to be small, incidental, and or/routine such as this, this, this, this, etc. If draftify is not an option, then I'd vote delete. GauchoDude (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of the keep voters are also ignoring the fact that WP:NFOOTY has been removed, and that it was only ever a guideline anyway on who might be notable, not a hard and fast rule of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NFOOTY and I expect the article to expand further in the future as he continues to play.
Preferably Draftify but otherwise Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. This is a modern day athlete, so if there is no coverage on him in this golden age of internet coverage then he just aint yet notable (WP:TOSOON). Whether he might have significant coverage in the future is WP:CRYSTALBALL. WP:NFOOTY, which currently doesn't exist, did require all subjects to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a tough one - probably should be kept for encyclopaedic reasons, sourcing is pretty bad, career is ongoing but not in a fully professional league, GNG argument possible but not clear cut. Any option seems to be on the table - I'm in between weak keep and draftify. Surprised to see WP:NFOOTY is deprecated, what the heck did I miss?!? SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer The various participation criteria of WP:NSPORTS was deprecated as it was deemed to be a rather poor judge of whether athletes were notable or not. It has also been made clearer in NSPORTS that all athletes must pass the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's really always been the case in terms of the GNG but hopefully this will lead to better enforcement, though we didn't need to throw out all the SNGs. I can't find any slam dunk GNG sources for Burton and two of his appearances appear to have been brief. Still somewhere between weak keep and draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 8 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.