Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Wilson (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The result was   Keep (Nomination withdrawn). Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Wilson (footballer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Played one game for Manchester United in 1890, but I can't find any secondary sources about him other than statistics pages or apparent WP mirrors. Imyourfoot (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn as per below Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - we need a WP:COMMONSENSE approach, and though this guy has played in the FA Cup (which would normally show notability), he dramatically fails WP:GNG. If the article is improved, I'm happy to change my mind. GiantSnowman 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been vastly improved thanks to the wonderful Struway2, and so I'm happy with this guy's notability now. GiantSnowman 02:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a (very) little more to the article, but it's still only routine sports reporting/stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment just out of interest, why does his FA Cup appearance, not his Alliance appearances make him notable?Stu.W UK (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep In answer to Stu.W UK's question, I'd argue that an FA Cup appearance wouldn't necessarily make a player notable, although in Wilson's case it was a game between two professional clubs, the full season of Alliance appearances would. The Football Alliance was no less fully-professional than the early Football League. So despite the lack of significant media coverage available online – not really surprising at 120 years distance – my experience of local newspaper archives of the time is that I'd expect there to have been enough coverage of a regular first-team player to fill out a short article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Struway2.  Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Having heard the Football Alliance is notable, this player's appearances there demonstrate his notability. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That's enough to satisfy me that he should be in WP. My one remaining concern is the article's maximum potential length.  As I don't have access to newspaper archives concerning him I'm unsure whether there's much more content to be added despite meeting the notability requirements.  If there is then great, no issue.  If there isn't though it seems like this would be a candidate at some point for merging (though that raises the question of which article would be the best host).  Normally I would wait a while to see how the article develops before mentioning that possibility, but my AFD template was the first edit to the page after its creation more than two years prior, so it's probably best to raise the question now while there's a bit of attention on it. Imyourfoot (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If he made 19 league appearances then there is potential for more information to be added from archive sources, not that there's anything wrong with a stub per se. Also, I don't see where it would be merged to, or why? Eldumpo (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have an aversion to an article being in a permanent stub state, and while my preferences aren't of any particular significance, I interpreted Merging ("Reasons to merge a page include... minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic") and Wikipedia:Integrate ("Stub articles belonging to a specific category with minimal content should be merged into a meta-article covering that subject matter") as suggesting they should be avoided.  That said, your point about there not currently being a good page to merge this into is a perfectly valid one.  In any case, since there's no longer any objection to the subject's notability and theoretical merge concerns can be taken care of at a later date, this Nomination is withdrawn. Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.