Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Grant (footballer, born 1988)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=John Grant (footballer, born 1988)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=John Grant (footballer, born 1988)}})

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage available online other than mere-mentions in match writeups. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep 144 games for Alloa, with some sources like [https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12758536.stirling-albion-4---0-alloa-athletic/ Herald Scotland], [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/big-spending-dundee-off-to-perfect-start-0fsdrsf8jgb The Times]. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:*Both articles are match reports; the first mentions his sending off, the second mentions goals scored by him. Coverage doesn't get more routine than that. The two articles do not contribute to WP:GNG being met. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::*{{reply|Robby.is.on}} If you're going to do that, then you need to delete every season article, every footballer article there is, match reports do contribute to GNG, to say they are all routine coverage is not a practical way to run wikipedia guidelines. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

:::*Let's not go down the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rabbit hole. The mentions of Grant in the two articles are "trivial mentions" as explained in WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Yes, let's delete the other articles with inadequate sourcing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

::::Agree, we should start with deleting BLPs that don't meet WP:BLP policy for strong sourcing, even if the subject played with balls, regardless of type.  // Timothy :: talk  15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no evidence of this article meeting GNG. The sources provided aren't significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing  // Timothy :: talk  15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.