Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Adams
per , specifically the section |#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. It is correct to say that  provides "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject ''is likely to'' meet the General Notability Guideline" (my highlighting), and this subject does pass the #Association football|Association football criteria of NSPORTS, and did pass WP:ATH at time of creation, for ''presumed'' notability. Given that, it's down to GNG. We have to consider "not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be". I have no personal knowledge of whether this footballer's career was covered in any detail in the newspapers of the time: perhaps it wasn't. But I do know, because he says so above, that the nominator hasn't looked. That isn't an assumption of bad faith on his part: much as some of us would like to, it isn't generally possible to spend one's life buried in newspaper archives. GNG states that "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources". The nominator suggests it isn't likely that significant coverage can be found. He may well be right, but from experience of just how much newspaper coverage there was of sport and sportspeople in the pre-television era, he may well be wrong. For disclosure, I also am a member of ikiProject Football, though I hope that doesn't preclude me from thinking for myself. cheers
— User:Struway2, 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:FAILN||WP:NSPORTS||WP:NSPORTS||WP:W (Wikipedia:Notability)