Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Ainscow
So I wanted to take this a bit beyond the typical "keep, he passes " argument.   gives a presumption that sources exist.  I think this is helpful in a few instances.  One is when a subject is ''relatively'' old.  The older a subject is (or for an athlete the older their prime sporting years), the harder it is to actually find sources.  While certainly this applies to pre-Internet players, I think that can go back as few as five years as many sources are not online anymore.  Here, the subject played about 30 years ago.  Let's face it, most editors are sitting at their computer and doing online research.  No one is going through hard newspapers finding sources.  However, we can presume that a player that played in the Football League of that era would have been covered in newspapers - its just difficult and a lot to ask a volunteer website to go check those.  Also in the favor is this player played in 22 games over multiple seasons.  Its not like we have a guy who made an appearance in 1 game in the last ten minutes.  He scored four times.  I think its fair to say that a scorer for Wigan would have been covered in the local newspapers.  Its a presumption the community has created and it should be respected.  I could see a different argument for a player who two years ago played one game and then retired.  For that, we could as to show cause to see what is out there.  In that case, the Internet should have something.  Here, its not reasonable for the Internet to have much and the vast majority of newspapers are not Internet archived and readily searchable.  In view of the players age and the relatively large number of appearances, I say keep
— User:RonSigPi, 23:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NFOOTY (Wikipedia:Notability)