Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McKnight (English 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. Very nice work by and. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

John McKnight (English footballer)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and England. Joeykai (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:OFFLINESOURCES, being yet another example of an AFD about a pre-internet footballer where there is zero evidence that nominator has complied with BEFORE. Big sigh. GiantSnowman 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF; there is zero evidence that the nominator has not complied with BEFORE. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also zero evidence that they have... GiantSnowman 05:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AGF we assume that an editor is acting in good faith unless there is evidence they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:FPL. He played some matches in the Football League First Division. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 02:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @KingSkyLord Please note that playing in a fully professional league is not grounds for an article to be kept per WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. But dozens of caps for a fully-professional league in the 1800s? That certainly suggest a significant BEFORE must be done before nomination. Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are surely offline sources for this early footballer who played in a significant professional league.-- Mvqr (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As no WP:SIGCOV can be found, WP:GNG is not met, and more importantly WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires that articles with no significant coverage are deleted, is failed. WP:OFFLINESOURCES supports the use of offline sources, it doesn't allow us to assume they exist without finding them, and WP:FPL is neither a policy nor a guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vaguewaves toward a presumption of sources existing, based on his meeting a criterion that was eliminated specifically because it was a garbage predictor of sources existing, have no grounding in our notability guidelines. If someone in the future can uncover offline SIGCOV then the article can be recreated; otherwise we are just hosting yet another pointless database-dump microstub on an athlete in contravention of NOT. Being listed as a "professional" footballer should not afford a subject a stay of deletion any more than being listed in almost any other profession should; there is nothing in our PAGs to suggest otherwise. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's certainly a lot of hits in the British Newspaper Archive - though I can't access the articles. Did you review these ? Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. More likely than not that offline sources exist; player is completely notable, no need to go book-burning just because you "won" your fight to repeal NFOOTY. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing interesting here. Nwhyte (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINTERESTING. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:HEY. I just made it interesting, with coverage of McKnight's amusing performance in an 1894 English Cup match, and others.  BD2412  T 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find soccer dull as dirt personally but this subject very clearly meets general notability guidelines, the article is well referenced, and the additions add a lot of color and interest. This should never have been listed for deletion in the first place. Too many of these listings appear indiscriminate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 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.