Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Bean

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 redirect‎ to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bean

[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)

The subject played a very small number of matches for a lower league semi-professional football team. The only sources appear to be databases and club histories. I'm curious to see if others think this person meets the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly Gillingham is a fully professional club, so your nomination is slightly floored there. I am curious why you didn't post a question to ChrisTheDude who is highly active on wikipedia about your concerns first instead of going straight to AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should have been discussed with the user who created this page, having a look at the page history, it has been on Wikipedia for a fraction under 15 years. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it doesn't seem to be a hugely unreasonable AfD. He only played 3 times professionally and the article itself states No further details of his career are known, which is essentially a confession that not much was written about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: - not that it's especially relevant to the AfD given that the whole "has played in a fully pro league" thing died a long time ago, but while the Gills may be fully pro now they (and all Third Division clubs) almost certainly weren't in the early 1950s. Articles reproduced in this book, which I own, makes it clear that many players at that level had jobs outside football at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes I know, I know that there were professional footballers in those days, but even know they were on full professional contracts and were paid, they were not paid enough and required second jobs. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pretty much the definition of semi-professional sports:

Semi-professional sports are sports in which athletes are not participating on a full-time basis, but still receive some payment. Semi-professionals are not amateur because they receive regular payment from their team, but generally at a considerably lower rate than a full-time professional athlete. As a result, semi-professional players frequently have (or seek) full-time employment elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Actually no, he was a full professional under contract and pay and having to train full time. There is no ifs and buts about it. Having a second job was to make up the money. Football at the time, league football was all fully professional, but the pay was lousy for the lower divisions. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) is a possibility. Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as valid ATD. Giant Snowman 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG generally. The delete vote is to fight against WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS as ATD. Can't see any harm in having a redir as opposed to outright deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as R from member. Killarnee (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Idiosincrático (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2024 (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.