Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Goddard

Felix Goddard

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage, just stats/routine news. Giant Snowman 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s got significant coverage from what I can see. Stop pointlessly tagging pages for deletion - becoming quite pathetic now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:59C9:B142:4513:9C80 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing from your IP, EnglishDude. Giant Snowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I see at least one example of WP:SIGCOV in a reliable source (Straits Times - ironically it's from the very beginning of his career) and that's enough combined with other coverage for a WP:NSPORT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not enough. Giant Snowman 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is for WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - it says that "an athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources" (my emphasis). Giant Snowman 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at least one" - and that even doing that "does not indicate notability". Giant Snowman 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, Germany, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough coverage. One article from the Strait Times mentioned above is not enough. Simione001 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT is a little looser than WP:GNG. Unlike with GNG, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Combine the one article with the extensive non-SIGCOV available, it's a pass on the SNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, a WP:NSPORT pass isn't enough for AfD. See Q2 in the FAQ section. -- asilvering (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've missed that question up entirely up to this point. (And Q1 notwithstanding, I don't fully understand why we have SNGs for sports at all if everything ultimately has to come back to GNG.) Delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficiently referenced to pass in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, only one source has currently been found with SIGCOV. That is not enough to pass GNG. Sources must be multiple. Have you found any others? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a disagreement among participating editors here on how to read WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the !vote says this passes GNG, which is incorrect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Lancashire Telegraph articles are a RS. I found this [1] and [2], should be enough for an article, in addition to what's in the article now for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed those early on. The Irish Independent is just a long set of quotes from Goddard's manager with no actual reporting; I don't think it counts as independent SIGCOV. The Telegraph article is WP:ROUTINE transfer coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
transfer coverage that's about the player, still counts Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, standard transfer coverage is definitely classed as WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 17:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that the Lancashire Telegraph article is WP:ROUTINE. This is a football player for a professional club. If this player is notable, then all club players are notable. Could well be WP:TOOSOON in that the player could become notable in the future but there is no way to know that. Does not currently meet GNG Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]