Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Appleyard (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Appleyard (footballer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor footballer. Lack in depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NFOOTY (he was in the top English league and made six appearances). I am usually reluctant to rely on NFOOTY, but six apps is a lot different from one or two apps (and we usually keep those articles, anyway). He played in the 1920s so the lack of easily accessible sources is not strange. I guess I do have a question about verifiability - I can't seem to find him on any football database (but I'm not sure they go back that far, and I may be looking in the wrong place). But I stand by my keep unless someone can show he did not make those 6 apps. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. If we can't verify he even exists it is a problem. There's a reason we require "multiple sources" to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NFOOTBALL. There's bound to not be a great deal of coverage readily available for a player who played in the 1920s and 30s. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please don't just vote WP:NFOOTBALL without trying to verify the article. The deletion rationale is about lack of sources. There is not enough sources to even verify this was a real person, and people are assuming the article is an automatic keep without looking to see if the content is even accurate. It could be a WP:Hoax for all we know based on the lack of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't tell me how I can and can't !vote. The existing source confirms that the subject is a real person; the fact it's an offline source doesn't lessen its worth. Per WP:OFFLINE, "there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources". Anyway, I'm currently working on expanding the article with data from the English National Football Archive. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't specifically directed at you but as a statement to all editors. I agree offline references are valid, but I do question the validity of this source when I can't confirm this person was even alive in other sources. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Claim that "we can't verify he existed" is an odd one. I own the book cited in the article and can confirm that Appleyard has an entry in it. So, unless you think that Michael Joyce randomly decided to make up a fake player, we most certainly can confirm that he existed......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. This is a bad-faith and POINTy nomination based on this - also deeply flawed as detailed by everyone above. Giant Snowman 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What am I being pointy about? This nomination has nothing to do with the policy discussion on that page. This has an entirely different rationale. I'm not sure how the one event policy change at the RFC would apply in this context. Making such a suspicious accusation is uncivil. This nomination was solely based on the fact that I couldn't find any sources anywhere online. That's it. It's just about the need to prove notability and verifiability per multiple references. 4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. A big thank you to Mattythewhite who was able to find another source and improve the article. I think WP:SIGCOV has been met. I will close the disucssion momentarily. Thanks to all who participated.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.