Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Dunne

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. Fenix down (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Dunne

[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:NFOOTY due to playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NFOOTY and can be assumed to have pre-internet offline coverage. You cannot treat a player from the 1950s like one from the 21st century in coverage terms. As GS rightly says, articles like this need improvement, not deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any online coverage that is significant or in-depth, and while I don't have access to the offline sources mentioned in the article, they appear to be trivial in nature. Even if the single Football League appearance is enough to create a presumption of notability, such a presumption is invalid when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any offline sources in this article. There are two online sources only. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought I noticed some book references but obviously I was mistaken. Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded it a bit. There's rather more to his career than one game for Colchester, and there's some coverage that I can access, but without an infinitely expandable budget of time and money to use on newspaper archives in the next few days, that's as far as I'm taking it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2021 (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.