Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ryan (footballer)

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 . Absolutely nothing wrong with the nomination, and the reality is sources are an issue for someone who played a century ago. However consensus has emerged that there is sufficient sourcing on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 14:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ryan (footballer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Charles Ryan (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag was removed without improvement. WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. There's not enough in-depth coverage to do that, and searches did not reveal any, so fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inclined to keep Although Crystal Palace were classed as non-league in Southern League from 1906 to 1909, does not negated London press and publication. If the stats add up, there will surely be more offline sources. The article isn't that old, the nominator hasn't given any time to for others to go find sources and populate the article. AfD is not cleanup. Govvy (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as author. Palace were professional from 1906, and as the author of the GNG I'm not going to comment on one person's subjective reading of it. Am also disappointed nominator has not responded to the below on the article talk page, nor why they have ignored the editing policy.
The notability tag is a concern. As a main driver and author of what is now referred to as the GNG it feels like the idea behind the GNG has got lost. We're here to build an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge, and we should be discussing the way this article informs people rather than whether it meets a subjective set of wording. That was the idea behind notability, that we ensure that we hold the information to account, that we ensure that we engage with each other and peer review what we do. We shouldn't be tagging an article and not leaving a message on talk about why; specifically, not engaging with the idea behind what Wikipedia is. It's open, it's collaborative, it's informative. Show the harm in the article. Then think about Summary Style and organisational theory. How does the encyclpedia fit, is a link to a separate page better and more concise than information subsumed into a larger entity, harder to find and link to? Choose what's best for the purpose, for the reader, for the knowledge. Hiding T 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with what GNG is now or with our requirement that athletes meet it, take it up at vpp. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I did a search in the British Newspaper Archive and the best I found[1] was a single line on him being signed by Crystal Palace "Charles Ryan, the Nunhead centre-half, has signed a professional form for Crystal Palace". Being a professional footballer does not equal notability and unsubstantiated claims of there WP:MUSTBESOURCES are just that; unsubstantiated claims. Alvaldi (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Umm @Alvaldi: However you did find one source on your first search which tells us there was something to find, I said inclined to keep, on the possibility, you kinda helped there. It's not a far ask to believe in the possibility of other offline sources!! Govvy (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy There is a massive leap from having a single unsignificant line to your name to having multiple significant sources over a significant period of time to it. If this and a couple of mentions of a Ryan in match reports is everything we can find, then there is is absolutely no indications that the individual was notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
  • Stats >> 1.  "Ryan, Charles William" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  • Mention, routine sports annoucement, no SIGCOV >> 2. ^ "London Flashlights on amateurs and amateur doings". Football Chat and Athletic World. 4 September 1906. p. 2. Retrieved 22 April 2023 – via British Newspaper Archive. Charles Ryan, the Nunhead centre-half, has signed a professional form for Crystal Palaceclosed access
  • Name listed, stats, no SIGCOV >> 3. ^ *King, Ian (2012). Crystal Palace: The Complete Record 1905-2011. Derby Books Publishing Company Limited. pp. 550–1. ISBN 978-1-78091-221-9.
Keep votes provided no sources or guidelines.
BEFORE showed nothing but stats and listings, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - recentism strikes again. There are days where I wonder if commenters to deletion discussions know what a book is, much less a library, a newspaper, or micro-fiche. I think we're being way too reliant on google for notability. I think you all should read over Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Biases_to_be_aware_of and try again. - jc37 09:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No sources showing notability were found in newspaper archives, do you have sources or is this another SOURCESMUSTEXIST complaint about editors following notability guidelines?  // Timothy :: talk  10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 I specifically stated that I used the British Newspaper Archive to search for sources. The little that can be found about him there gives no indications that he was a notable player, perhaps not surprising since he seemingly was a career non-league player. Alvaldi (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. You'd stand more chance of finding him with initials than first name. There's ongoing London/Surrey-based newspaper non-SIGCOV of his club and county amateur career from about 1903 onwards, mostly at the namecheck level, plus the odd detail to make it a bit more interesting. E.g. South London Mail March 1904 (link is to the subscription site British Newspaper Archive, which I haven't got an account with so am struggling with snippet searches) finds him selected by both the London and Surrey County Associations for a match between the two; free-access clipping from Surrey Advertiser of January 1905 finds Southern United having 2 points deducted because they played Ryan when he was already registered with Hitchin (the "E.W." Ryan is a typo); free-access clipping from the Surrey Mirror March 1906, not long before he turned pro, that praises him to the skies as the only decent defender Nunhead possessed.
  • As to COV approaching SIG, there's a pen-picture in the Athletic Chat Nov 1908 that's quite informative (BNA paywall again, I'm afraid). And a pair of free clippings, from a long piece in the Peterborough & Hunts Standard of Oct 1910 about Peterborough City's new ex-pros and why they signed: the first has biographical details; the second explains that fighting to get his fee reduced, as Ryan had done, meant none of the better clubs would want to sign him, and also mentions him being a pro cricketer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pen picture of C.W. Ryan article in Athletic Chat is rather detailed and the article in The Peterborough and Hunts Standard is not great, not terrible. Changing my !vote to Weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability, and showing COMMONSENSE. Another flawed AFD from this editor. GiantSnowman 22:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 82 starts in the top division of English football - there's no way on earth this would ever be a delete. Not surprising that sources were found above. BEFORE failure, and another time-wasting nomination from this editor. Nfitz (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure where commonsense comes into it, or where Mr Ryan's appearances in the top division of English football came from. This player has 0 (zero) appearances in the Football League, so would have failed the old NFOOTY, and coverage of individual players in his day wasn't wall-to-wall. I spent half of yesterday (literally) looking for sources, and found a couple of half-decent ones. If the nomination had really been flawed or time-wasting, loads would have turned up on an initial search, one or two of which might even have been reliable sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was nothing wrong with this AfD nomination, from my prospective Onel had every right to nominate this article from what it showed. @Struway2: Southern League at that time was fully professional as they were trying to compete against the Football League. There wasn't any true top division at the time. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incredibly frustrated that the debate is a sea of comments about notability and not about how the article informs readers. Feels like Wikipedia has lost sight of the WP:PURPOSE. Are we here to leave a reader informed and inspired, curating knowledge and putting together a jigsaw of knowledge that summarises sources? Surely we're not here to block access to knowledge? Hiding T 10:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three of the four Newspaper.com and BNA references that are in the article go towards GNG. The 1908 in the BNA is particularly good! Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (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.