Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Partridge

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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Partridge

[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 Joeykai (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Joeykai (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be shocked if someone with 160 appearances for Manchester United was non-notable (for the 160 games, see here). BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A player with 160 caps and 18 goals for Manchester United,[1]. Has book coverage [2][3] and with certainty plenty of period newspaper coverage. Still on the record books as one of the oldest players to play for Manchester. Joeykai did you even try searching or looking him up? Because this is a very bad nomination.--Mvqr (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as demonstrated above. Giant Snowman 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources including book sources show that he is well covered and enough to pass WP:GNG, as there will definitely be WP:OFFLINESOURCES about him, given that there are online book sources about him. Any delete votes based on "not enough sources" would be a violation of WP:OFFLINESOURCES, as sources are almost certain to exist, and the onus should be on the person wanting deletion to actually demonstrate there aren't any sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Almost certain to exist" isn't quite the same as "verifiable" as per WP:NRV. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are y'all kidding me? Being mentioned a handful of times in match recaps in a book that covers basically every Man U-Liverpool fixture isn't SIGCOV. Being named in a list of players in another book is not SIGCOV. Such namedrops wouldn't count for historical military commanders, why should they for footballers? JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The books listed only have trivial mentions of the subject. A search in the British Newspaper Archive, both under "Teddy Partridge" and "Edward Partridge", only turned up trivial mentions. This particular source also states that he was 28 years old when he transfered to Halifax Town in 1929, meaning he might have been born in 1901 but not 1891. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he does have enough coverage to pass GNG, and have started to add a range of information to the article to support this.RossRSmith (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be sufficient information and sources to warrant an article. Has been expanded since the delete votes above. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AFAICT the newly-added refs are the same ones with passing mentions Alvaldi brought up above. Also, articles from the same newspaper count as one source for notability -- so there are technically only two new sources added that could potentially contribute to GNG, the Derby Daily Telegraph and the Halifax Evening Courier. From what I've seen of the latter, it's just routine transactional news of indeterminate provenance (could be press releases). The former has a brief blurb on him that could maybe go towards BASIC but is otherwise not significant. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 12 July 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.