Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley John


 * 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. Several commenters have specifically rejected the argument that sources must exist offline. In contrast, none of the people making that argument have given even the slightest indication of where these sources might be. I find the refutations more persuasive and I find a consensus to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wesley John

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. I am sure offline sources exist given the extent of his career, but we don't have any. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -, clearly significant figure in St Vincent and the Grenadines football and definitely has offline sources, having played 11 years for national team with double digit caps and been one of few Vincentians to play in Europe, let alone have a 23-year career in Europe. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid voting reason Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. When was the last time we saw a player with over 80 national caps not have any significant coverage - let alone any coverage. We definitely want to see a good reference; but at the same time, there are extreme cases such as this where we need to have some common-sense and apply WP:IAR rather than apply black-and-white thinking. Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable - played 84 times for his country - usual revisionist nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanoni (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above comments. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I found it surprisingly hard to find sources online for this guy considering his career. One little mention on a team sheet is hardly GNG. This probably needs one of the wikipedia community who lives out there to work on!! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was surprised that I wasn't getting much of anything - even boxscores, from Portugese sources. I was wondering if there's a name variation. Though it's hard, even with quotes, to get rid of the 'Wesley, John' results - apparently a well-known vicar. Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That vicar does seem to saturate the top results. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the "vicar" - John Wesley. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. IAR is not valid as an article about a non-notable topic obviously does not improve the encyclopedia. –– FormalDude    talk   04:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails GNG and we have nothing to suggest that significant coverage will be found. The project as a whole would be well served by interested parties creating (and populating) lists for players such as this, e.g. List of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines international footballers or similar, so we can bypass these AFDs with redirections (or at least have a valid WP:ATD) and have an article that is useful for readers instead of dozens of stubs that tell them nothing but (mirrored) statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The way to counter a challenge of not meeting GNG is to produce at least two in-depth, high-quality about the subject. There are none in the article, none of the 'keep' arguments have done so and I cannot find anything suitable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 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.