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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. McAdam

[edit]

[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)

With WP:NFOOTY now deprecated/removed/whatever you want to call it, I have been unable to find any indication that this player meets WP:GNG. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article (which I wasn't able to find and review), but it appears to be book of statistics and records rather than prose commentary. Even if it were significant coverage of McAdam, a single source is insufficient on its own.

There is no list of Darwen FC players or article for the 1891-1892 season to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How did we ever have articles like this in the first place? Never likely to be anything other than the tiniest stub; no new sources giving more information ever likely to be found. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify.~~ Delete. There is always the possibility that a book will be found which provides information about Darwen as a Football League club. It isn't surprising that the internet doesn't help in a case like this. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and we don't even appear to know their first name. The article has existed for almost 9 years without improvement, so I fail to see any point in moving it to draftspace- if people haven't improved it in 9 years, it's unlikely they'll do so in the next 6 months. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've changed my vote from draftify to delete. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player fails GNG, and we don't even know his first name! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2022 (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.