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 redirect to List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps). RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Oppenheim[edit]

Harry Oppenheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub about a guy who played one football game in 1909 is wholly sourced to two database entries. A BEFORE shows it fails WP:GNG, with searches for Harry Oppenheim on Google and Google books mostly turning up other people with the same name, and searching with the alleged date of birth only turns up Wikipedia mirrors. The database sourcing on their own fail WP:SPORTCRIT. NFOOTY no longer exists. Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In short redirection is only a valid ATD if the people searching for Harry Oppenheim are only going to be looking for the person who played one match for the Austrian national squad, and if the list of national squad players is what they are going to be looking for. Otherwise we are preventing them from finding the other Harry Oppenheims covered by Wiki, or the other roles that this Harry Oppenheim played. As we can see there are actually a lot of other subjects they may be looking for, and even if they are looking for this Harry Oppenheim, they may well not be looking for the list of national squad players.
@Indy beetle/Samanthany - I see that WP:NFOOTY is now obsolete but I'm having trouble finding the discussion where this was decided, can you help me with a link? FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: I believe it was an outgrowth of this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Follow-up discussions to that RfC took place on the NSPORTS talk page which I did not follow as closely. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think this is the one? Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_49#Association_football_(soccer) - basically it was a pure participation-based standard and the general RFC decided against that, and no replacement was agreed on. Anyway, even with WP:CHEAP I think keeping this as a redirect stops people from discovering the other potential search targets and it really isn't likely that anyone is really searching for this particular guy looking for lists of Austrian national football players who played a single game in 1909, so delete it is. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it highly unlikely that readers will be searching for this specific fellow and be greatly informed by a redirect to list of one/two-match football players from the early 1900s. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears no more or less reliable than the source which you used to create the article with, which described Oppenheim using what is almost certainly a nickname. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources' reliability are fine per the project's list of sources that can be used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of beside the point here, all those sources should probably be evaluated on their own merits. It looks like those are simply added on the whim of various users. Not to say that means they aren't reliable, but those links don't appear to be getting approval or review from more than one person. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only makes sense if this guy is the Heinrich Oppenheim that people are searching for. He isn't, because we already have an article about a Heinrich Oppenheim. Redirection is NOT for storing information - if anyone wants to get this article back (and why would they when it basically contains no information?) they can just request an undelete. FOARP (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point of the redirect, the redirect is going to a list and not a name. And besides, Oppenhiem's are all related to each other in one way or another. Oppenheim family, although Harry is not on the list there, that's a very incomplete list. I know a little bit about this family through my family history. Not much know. Govvy (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (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.