Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Martin (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 redirect to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). It seems pretty obvious given this individual played once for Bradford that the difficulty in finding sources is as much to do with the fact that they probably don't exist at least as much as the time he was playing. Nonetheless a plausible search term in itself, so a redirect seems appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Martin (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)

Fails WP:GNG: almost nothing is known/knowable about this individual, who may never have even existed (it is possible he is a typo in a team list). Although WP:NFOOTY in its current formulation pretends that all Football League players have always been fully professional, this is demonstrably not true. In any case a listing in an obscure stats compendium falls ways short of the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League at any time during its history is considered as conferring notability, and the player's appearance is verified. Article needs improving, not deleting. The nomination is WP:POINTy following disagreement between myself (article creator) and nominator. At most article should be redirected to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). Giant Snowman 17:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is considered by who as "conferring notability"? You? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that's exactly what NSPORT says. Try reading it. Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have read it before you spent ten years plus flooding Wikipedia with this sort of totally non-notable dross? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: not wishing to be a dick, but can I ask why in this AfD you said that a player with just one league appearance and no evidence of passing GNG should be kept, but in this one two days ago you essentially said the exact opposite......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's a huge different on ease of finding sources between a player active in the 1910s and one in the 1990s... Giant Snowman 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG overrides the ridiculously low bar of NFOOTY. SK2242 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances) - no realistic chance of meeting GNG but, if sources do exist, they will be offline and impossible to find through any search engine. Will reconsider my stance if sources come to light so please let me know Spiderone 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Daz Sampson btw, 'fully professional' doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet... Spiderone 18:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's a madey-up nonsense concept? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Redirect to the list of Bradford City players with 1-49 league appearances, as suggested above. Even if there might be something on the British Newspaper Archive, it most likely wouldn't be enough to confer notability on this very minor player. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect, this is a non-article as it stands, and I think it can safely be assumed that football got a lot less detailed coverage in 1911 than today. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per suggestion, although, how many people are really going to lookup a guy who played one game and 99.999% of the football community have never heard of! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can be created based on presumed notability but still faces the same scrutiny as any other article on Wikipedia. I, myself, have used the argument that a lack of historical data should be considered in the cases of these players, biographies, sports and events included. That was deemed not to hold water and I understand why. The intent is to hold subjects to the letter of the law. We can not differentiate and all articles should be treated equal. As such, if it does not receive SIGCOV in reliable and independent sources then it does not belong as per the current notability guideline. If that changes in the future then the article and many more thousands will be recreated I am sure. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:10, 11 January 2021 (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.