Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Horsfall


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

George Horsfall

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I am leaning towards keeping the article based on, Southampton wouldn't gave a testimonial match to a nobody, they gave him one on 16 May 1982. , that is interesting, as that suggests there maybe more media and news on this person from the South coast outfit. Mentioned in The Times. Mention in the Southampton Daily Echo. That's just a start of what I have uncovered and I bet there is more. Govvy (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cant read the times article due to paywall so im not sure how much of a mention he gets but the first link is a player profile on the clubs website and as such is not an independent source. The second link is to a match day program cover... not sure how that satisfies WP:GNG and the other link is a brief twitter post confirming the testimonial match you are refering to which also doesn't really satisfy WP:GNG either in my opinion. Simione001 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply Umm, the saintsplayers.co.uk website (the first link) is independent of the football club, it's actually run by an author/historian who has written books in association for the club and players. He describes the websites as a wiki, but because of its oversight its deemed reliable. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. But it's close, I think BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike today, when even a 17-year old football "starlet" gets plenty of press coverage, enabling them to pass WP:GNG, players in the 1940s rarely got such coverage apart from routine match reports. Does that make them all a potential subject for deletion? The article on saintsplayers.co.uk is a copy of the entry for Horsfall in the meticulously researched "All The Saints" published by Hagiology in 2013. If this article is deleted, then Wikipedia will end up having nothing about football players before the internet era, but will happily have articles about youngsters who have not achieved anything of lasting merit. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Govvy and Daemonickangaroo2018. There is definitely offline coverage of him, such as here. Played for Southampton, a team currently in the English Premier League. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons and sources above which show notability, although I note that the current PL status of the club is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 10:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2023 (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.