- 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. Although a significant number of sources in the article, they are essentially all of a routine nature with little to indicate the player gained significant coverage for any achievements of note. The keep votes present no further evidence to satisfy GNG and are speculative at best. Fenix down (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Charles Peecock[edit]
- Francis Charles Peecock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG as lacking non-routine coverage other than obituary in local paper; no coverage after obituary. Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG per the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Kges1901 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG - there is no evidence that he played at anything other than a very minor level, so no claim to notability based on his footballing endeavours exists anyway (he played for the club that would one day become Ipswich Town, but at a time when they played only low-level local amateur football). To be honest, I can't see any claim to notability here on any grounds. He was a small-town solicitor like thousands of other people, whose obit was published in the local paper like thousands of other people. I am sure he was a good solicitor, but there is nothing whatsoever here to justify a WP article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep this is an incredibly difficult one because it's historical, and while the sources in the article feel routine from their headlines (I can't access them) I think there's a benefit of the doubt on WP:GNG grounds. WP:NFOOTY doesn't apply since it's too old of an article. He is in the 1885 Ipswich Town photo here: [1], played against a Canadian team in 1891 [2] and is covered non-routinely in at least one book: [3]. Other period sources may exist on those grounds, especially if you look at the bibliography of the book. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I am also going by what SportFlyer has pointed out and what I see in the article. It's hard to verify but there appears enough for me to consider that he does just pass GNG. Article feels weak and I get an impression that a lot more could possible be added with the right research. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is not a stub; it is well researched and well written but there is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Chris above. This is a man who worked for his living, who had a brief obituary in his local paper when he died, and who enjoyed playing sport at a decent but unremarkable level. The "debut" mentioned in the article is a name-check of a 15-year-old boy playing alongside some of his brothers in a game against a school team.
As GiantSnowman says, the article is well researched. It cites several contemporary local newspapers. I'd guess that if there had been anything resembling notability, the page's creator would have found it and used it. I've done a fair bit of research on pre-League players: some were covered at the time in enough depth to pass GNG, but this chap doesn't seem to be one of them.
As to the Ipswich Town FC book mentioned by SportingFlyer, without access to it we can't tell whether it covers him non-routinely or not: the blogger "reviewing" it highlights the amusing names belonging to some of the club's early players, among which several Peecocks, but gives no indication of depth of coverage. Mentions in a history of a club that turned professional 40+ years after he played for it isn't enough for GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2018 (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.