Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gloster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - consensus favors keeping the article. Johntex\talk 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gloster

John Gloster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is no doubt that the teams he works/worked with are notable, but there's nothing in WP:BIO that indicates every team doc needs an article here. He doesn't appear to be known for anything else. Travellingcari (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. No, WP:BIO doesn't say that every team doc needs an article, but it does say that a subject with significant coverage in independent reliable sources is considered notable. As well as the references in the article he's had coverage by the BBC, The Hindu, Sporting Life, The Telegraph, and plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per Phil Bidger's sources verifying notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I'm missing something (I can't access the SportingLife or TelegraphIndia articles for whatever reason), but the two that I see just mention that he's a team doc. Not that he's done anything leading in his field. That's where I question notability. Travellingcari (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply. They are all substantial articles about the subject, which is enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO. There's no need for them explicitly say that he's done anything leading in his field, but anyway, don't you think that being appointed as physio to what is probably the most widely supported sports team in the world is doing something leading in his field? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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.