Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birchall


 * 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) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Birchall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - is anyone able to find out if he ever played a game for Carlisle? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't find any info on that (Carlisle weren't in the Football League at the time) but he did play 7 FL games for Lincoln City -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. please can you explain what cut off point you are using for fully professional for the FL? No mention of anything on WP:FPL to support such a thing.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been nowhere near until the reorganisation in 1958 and/or the abolition of the max wage in 1961. Arguably much later. In this guy's case Lincoln City were still completely part-time until (at least) the late 40s. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can point me in the direction of any WP:SIGCOV I'll get right to work.... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I am usually a deletionist, but here WP:NFOOTY is passed per Football League apps. I'm not too sure about WP:GNG but there seem to be sources backing up the material and they seem to be independent as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:SNG, meeting the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL is sufficient. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: We must interpret this differently. SNG states "...articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted ... especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found." I read this to mean unless significant coverage can be found, passing WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I am kind of in agreement with the keep votes, there are a number of games which count backed up by soft citations. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per all but one of the above cases and I really am glad this is the last one. What a waste of time. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom, unless someone can find significant coverage then the subject is unable to have a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 26 October 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.