Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904)

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. Fenix down (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904)[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)

This article has had no sources for over 12 years. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no evidence such a person ever existed. Google Books has gone wonky for me, but news and scholar return nothing and proper Google is just mirrors. The chance that this guy either is a hoax or mentioned only once in some old book somewhere increases the more mirrors I have to sift through. Toss it, in my opinion.
Keep per sources supplied by later !voters. casualdejekyll 20:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about non-notable individual who might never have existed. Deletion is long overdue. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apparently not a hoax. Still not notable. My delete vote stands. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I wasn't able to find anything. This could very well be a hoax. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Casualdejekyll, Doczilla, and Scorpions13256:, foxestalk appears to show him in the 1925-26 squad and I'm fairly certain that a James Baxter at 11v11 is the same person so there's a good chance that this is not a hoax but a relatively unknown footballer. If so, he would pass WT:FOOTY as Leicester were playing in the top division at the time. I will have a look to see if searches for James Baxter in the 1920s reveal any more. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this confirms what the article says. It also shows that he was commonly known as James Baxter not Jimmy, which would explain why it was difficult to find sources for him under that name. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDMAN 2019 If James Baxter is the primary name, can the article be moved after the AfD? (I'm afraid moving it during the AfD might mess it up.) casualdejekyll 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll:, if James Baxter proves to be the WP:COMMONNAME, moving the page after the AFD concluded wouldn't be a problem. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck my comments for now, but I don't think any of the sources count toward WP:GNG. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG is not met as no examples of WP:SIGCOV have been provided, and WP:NFOOTY no longer exists.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.scottishjuniorfa.com/scottish-junior-cup/history-of-junior-cup/previous-finals/1920-1949/		Mentioned in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.11v11.com/players/james-baxter-43519/	?	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/jimmy-baxter_2/	?	Statistics only database	✘ No
http://www.bufc.drfox.org.uk/rollcall.html#JBaxter	?	Statistics only database	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one should go towards GNG. I also found another one from 1929 behind a paywall at the British Newspaper Archive that does cover his career up to that point but, like his career, is not the longest. Alvaldi (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. Giant Snowman 21:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still undecided. Please keep me updated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As he played in the English First Division, and for Parkhead when they were a highly successful and well supported club, I would expect there to be more coverage of him, but I suspect it will mostly be in book/newspaper form rather than online. At the moment I think this is very much a borderline case unless more sources can be located. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TWL likely has something.. somebody'll have to check that casualdejekyll 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources supplied by Alvaldi establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources provided by Alvaldi. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the sources provided. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disruptive nomination. Nominator knows perfectly well about WP:NEXIST and that the answer for a sourcing problem is a reference template, NOT an AfD! He also know that WP does not have deadlines but submitted this AfD anyway. The subject meets the WP:GNG per abundance of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SNOW clearly applies to this nomination. gidonb (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it is a weak keep at best right now IMHO. There isn't abundance of SIGCOV on the subject, there is one decent source and one iffy. And I'm writing this as the one who actually went out of his way to find those sources. I don't know if the nominator performed a proper WP:BEFORE but that wouldn't have turned up anything even if he did as a Google search wouldn't have turned up those sources. So while I agree with you that the nominator could have done a much better job with the nomination, the subject is still of questionable notability. Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on sourcing this article is much appreciated! And absolutely no WP:BLP concern here! gidonb (talk)

This is not a disruptive nomination. In fact, if it wasn't for @REDMAN 2019, this likely would have closed as Delete. casualdejekyll 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources provided are sufficient to establish notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:27, 1 May 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.