Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Reid (rugby union)

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reid (rugby union)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Reid and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Please provide evidence of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per the requirements of WP:GNG. Making claims of WP:SOURCESEXIST needs to be supported in the AfD. Minimal transactional coverage in WP:ROUTINE sources are not typically considered to meet WP:GNG. Of the five sources currently listed: #1 is a mention in a list (not substantial), #2 is a routine transaction report with two paragraphs about the teams he has played for (and is on USA-specific rubgy site, run by and written by a single editor), #3 is primary, #4 is the same source as #2 (so it does not meet the multiple requirement) and half of it is a copy-n-paste from the primary press release as well as it being transaction coverage, and #5 (which seems to be a website that no longer exists, so I highly doubt it would meet WP:RS) is also transaction coverage. Essentially, the only thing verifiable in the current article about the subject is that they were a member of certain clubs, nothing substantial. Yosemiter (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter, the WP:GNG doesn’t say “multiple”, which is just as well, as the meaning would be debatable. It does use the plural “sources”, which seems to mean more than one, although hardly anyone seems to challenge notability if it comes from one major source. The word “typically” is vague, too. The question is simply whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. If you are suggesting the sources here are not reliable, do please say more. Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: From GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Yes, GNG is purposely meant to be slightly vague, but there is typically a consensus. Wikipedia is rarely explicit in its guidelines, that is why they are guidelines and not policies. I am simply explaining what is normally expected in an AfD for WP:BLP. Yosemiter (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair enough, Yosemiter. What’s “generally expected” is clearly not essential, as made clear by “There is no fixed number of sources required...” I do not see any solid challenge to the reliability of the sources. You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice, simply on the basis of a “multiple requirement” which is not there. Moonraker (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article though look to qualify it for WP:GNG, as stated by Yosemiter signing articles are just WP:ROUTINE and very often aren't independent. Having looked through them and done a google search I can find no sources that are secondary and reliable, and the coverage that is there is far and a way NOT significant. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Moonraker: You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice. From GNG (continued): "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected...Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Yosemiter (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: on a second note, I am fairly certain I did challenge the sources provided in my first comment. Doug Coil is the main editor of DJ Coil, and the rest are mostly his own family, which probably does not meet WP:RS per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. He almost exclusively covers match results and transactions, which makes his page a good source for WP:V but not necessarily for WP:N. They do sometimes do player profiles, which would be more than ROUTINE, but I didn't see one here. I already talked about the other three listed sources: #1 mention, #3 primary, and #5 is the defunct site that was simply a copy-n-paste job of the primary press release as evidenced by the exact same statement in the DJCoil article. I have not otherwise done a WP:BEFORE, I am just pointing out the listed sources are probably not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my view as well Yosemiter, and hence why I have flagged large numbers of these articles for not qualifying for WP:GNG and WP:NRU, not just because they don't qualify for WP:NRU. Obviously all are on a case by case basis but I have been through the sources/searched for sources on all of them and the majority are from the same/similar sources as on this articfle. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that I have done a more thorough source search, I am still not seeing anything other than transaction reports for this Michael Reid. Searches turned up very little in relation to the MLR member, although he was a bit mixed in with another Michael Reid that was in charge of Ulster Rugby for many years. If someone else can find better sources than those currently provided or that I could find in my own searches, then I would reconsider. Yosemiter (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources presented are either not independent or not significant. In particular, all independent sources are clearly those that are disqualified under WP:SPORTCRIT Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources available pass WP:GNG, which isn't a surprise given the other US based rugby players we've seen at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence to suggest that Reid meets NRU or the wider biographical notability guidelines at WP:BASIC Spiderone 08:04, 2 December 2020 (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.