Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Bates


 * 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) 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ernie Bates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are only statistics databases with no prose discussion of this player's career. This does not constitute significant coverage or establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - made over 40 appearances as a professional in The Football League. Has nominator even tried to comply with WP:BEFORE? GiantSnowman 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That not a policy based rationale. Please provide sources demonstrating notability per WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Demanding people show sources for someone where sources likely only exist offline is not the correct policy though.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. It’s why GNG and SPORTCRIT exist. Not to mention WP:Verifiability. Additionally, I disagree that offline sources likely exist. Many players of this era were in the background in terms of public notice. The press and public had there favorites and they got coverage. Others were there and never got noticed in offline sources.4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep handily passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NFOOTY does not preclude the sourcing requirements at SPORTCRIT to prove presumed notability.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep he comes from the pre-Internet era, and with 40 appearances in the Football League, it's likely that offline sources exist to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there any website similar to newspapers.com where on could look for old British newspaper articles for cases like this? Alvaldi (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BNA is a good starting point, I find. I can't actually find any mentions of him there, though. I would have expected some Yorkshire papers to cover him. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment probably weak keep Other sources exist, amazon shows two books which can have information on the subject The Avenue: Bradford Park Avenue, Pictorial History And Club Record and Bradford Park Avenue Who's Who: The Football League Years 1908 to 1970. Although they need to be review, at the moment it's just catalog listings. Not to mention the local newspaper for Bradford West Yorks, for the time period. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and 44 appearances in the pre-internet era.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2021 (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.