Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Burton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. plicit 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Burton[edit]

R. Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: Did you find anything on Burton that rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62. No. I suppose I might be being a bit generous, but the representative mention is a bit out of the ordinary and I think was a big deal at the time being post WWI. Sorry I should have provided the routine match reports too.[3] It is rather difficult trying to sort out who was who in the match reports because so often only the family name is used and sometimes an initial if you are lucky. Two teams might have persons with the same family name but initials might only be used if the two teams play each other, etc., so I have have tried to limit my assessments to be only when I am reasonably confident that I have got the person correct. It is very likely that all of "this batch" have more to be found, but only if you "know" what you are reading based on other sources (which given the time are essentially impossible to find on-line). However, I am also reasonably confident that unless I could see something non routine then everything else will also be routine. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Delete. I'll note that so far all !votes here, including the keep, argue this individual does not and is not expected to meet GNG, so... JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 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.