Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Charlton (footballer) (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  10:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

John Charlton (footballer)
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Since the previous no consensus result, WP:SPORTCRIT #5 has been added to WP:NSPORT, and WP:FOOTY has been removed, removing all justification to keep the article.

One source has been added since that discussion, but it is also not WP:SIGCOV - the full quote is Bradford A.F.C. have now signed the Derry City left full-back John Browell Charlton. Before going to Derry in 1933, Charlton had 2 1/2 years’ service with Liverpool. Charlton is 25 years of age and stands 5ft. 8 1/2ins. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per previous AFD(s). GiantSnowman 10:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your previous !votes were based on WP:NFOOTBALL, which is no longer part of WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they were on the basis that sources exist offline due to the level this player played at. GiantSnowman 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. I have a book about Bradford City somewhere, will dig it out when I can and expand (moved house, it's in a box somewhere).
 * But WP:MUSTBESOURCES is also not a suitable argument; we cannot keep an article because editors believe sources exist, those editors need to verify that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I am still going with keep, MUSTBESOURCES is a valid argument in my opinion for keeping an article. His Bradford City career isn't noted in the article and it's hard to believe there wouldn't be sources for that. There is a reason why he was signed by Liverpool from Bradford, there are lots of questions about the player which isn't in the article. WP:OFFLINESOURCES is my best bet and still the reason why I lean towards keep. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I searched through both Newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive but was unable to come up with anything of substance. No indications that the subject gained any notability through his football career. Alvaldi (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. In particular, this fails WP:SPORTCRIT #5 which requires that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Speculation that offline sources are likely to exist is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 12:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete we lack the significant coverage that is needed to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above. No clear proof the subject is passing WP:GNG, no evidence the subject might have acquired media coverage back to his days. --Angelo (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. As above, a search of BNA and Newspapers.com has already been done. If nothing of note was found there then I see no reason to keep this article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails MUSTBESOURCES. Avilich (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2022 (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.