Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvan Anderton

Sylvan Anderton[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)

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are those football cards? ltb d l (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes? Giant Snowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
football cards aren't reliable sources ltb d l (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's crazy ltb d l (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltb d l (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. Giant Snowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good research! Giant Snowman 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tell us what exactly is in those books? Dougal18 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards. Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an employee of the club (He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that he penned ... for the club is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like arguing that an 'official biographer' of a celebrity should be discredited...nonsense! Giant Snowman 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An official biographer of a celebrity who was hired by that celebrity's talent agency should absolutely be discredited! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]