Richard Allsebrook (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)

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, in an era when the internet did not exist. WP:COMMONSENSE apples. GiantSnowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped in 2022 and all Keeps using it as a reason to keep should be ignored by the closer. I did an actual search in the BNA archives and found no sigcov for Richard/Dick Allsebrook. Dougal18 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—"Two notable sources" is enough, especially given the WP:COMMONSENSE of the context. Anwegmann (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The book is just stats so it isn't enough even if the Athletic Times article is sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of good sources on internet. No question of notability. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Both sources don't give significant coverage of the player. The book is simply a compilation of player statistics while the Athletic News source is simply a listing of all the birth places, names, roles, and heights of the players. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As stated above, none of the sources cited in the article contain significant coverage of the player. Searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn’t turn up any significant coverage of the player in question. There are some results about a "Richard Allsebrook" being in two road accidents in 1930 and 1932 but I'm not certain whether or not this is the same "Richard Allsebrook". This article states that "Richard Allsebrook" was 32 years old at the time of the accident (1930) and this article states he was 37 years old at the time of the accident (1934). If those sources are to be believed, "Richard Allsebrook" was either born in 1897/1898 and not in 1892 like the article states. So either these sources are talking about a different "Richard Allsebrook" or they’re all referring to the same person and we simply have contradictory information about his birth date. Lastly, WP:NFOOTY, a WikiProject advice page, clearly states that The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Per the above, WP:NSPORTS is not met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? per WP:NEXIST offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: English newspapers are extensively digitized at TNA and the British Newspaper Archive. Keep !voters can be expected to show sources for this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the other voters I usally vote to delete these Stubs but it seems this player did more then play a dozen games with out doing something significant and the nominater himself says there are 2 reliable sources already Scooby453w (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They're both reliable sources that don't provide significant coverage of the player. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above. Clealy has offline sources as shown above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]