Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Caulfield

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 no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Caulfield[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)

Fails WP:FOOTBALL because he has never played or managed a team in a WP:FPL. I found a two page interview in Scotzine which isn't enough for passing WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG, considering he's won several Scottish Women's Premier League titles. Although he is for sure not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The article should be moved to Peter Caulfield (football coach). KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the actor should probably be the primary topic. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this person meets GNG. Any detailed sources out there @KingSkyLord:? Achievements are worthless if they are not supported by significant coverage. Giant Snowman 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Detailed source here, @GiantSnowman:. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a) a tabloid and non-RS and b) about the season rather than him. Giant Snowman 17:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication in guidance documents that the Daily Record is not considered a reliable source - is there guidance on that somewhere? I'm also puzzled on why the size of paper it's printed on is a factor. The Independent published for a while in Tabloid format - was that not reliable? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE. Notability (especially for a WP:BLP) is not automatically inherited from the teams he has coached. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. [1], [2], [3] People can argue the coverage is routine, but in truth it is exactly the sort of reporting you would expect to see about a notable football manager. Namely cliche-ridden stuff with him talking about being "over the moon" or "sick as a parrot" depending on results. We've seen time and again that the WP:FPL essay isn't relevant for women's football. I'd venture it's doubly irrelevant for any players/managers in Scotland – since quite a few Championship clubs in Scotland which the essay purports are "fully professional" are anything but. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BBC 2009 is trivial coverage (a one line quote), BBC 2019 is arguably trivial and non-independent (it's mostly an interview; six of the nine paragraphs are spoken by Caulfield himself), GlasgowTimes is primary/non-notability-conferring because it's entirely an interview; The Herald and In the Winning Zone are arguable but don't constitute sufficient coverage taken as a whole. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:L235, that when you add all that with the Daily Record article, that there is sufficient coverage. You didn't comment on that one. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nfitz that I didn't comment on the Daily Record article specifically, but I don't think that piece contributes to notability at all. The parts that contain unfiltered interview is all primary, and excluding that interview (the great majority of the article) the source counts as trivial coverage. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how it's trivial - it's much of the article. I'm also not sure the basis that you are tossing interviews as being primary sources. The article isn't just an interview ... interviewing someone as part of an article, doesn't make the article a primary source. In WP:GNG "independent of the source" says "... example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". It doesn't preclude (for example) biographies that involved an interview of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, Nfitz, but I respectfully disagree on both points. GNG specifically says secondary sources are the sources that count for notability purposes, and NOR subsection WP:PRIMARY (in note c) specifically counts interviews as primary sources. If we take out the interview, the only two sentences that mention Caulfield are one that state the fact that Caulfield took over the club, and one that leads into the interview, and that counts as trivial coverage and as WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports event (both of which disqualify the source from supporting notability). This isn't being picky just to be bureaucratic, either; primary sources (including interviews, even ones published in news sources, because there's limited – if any – factchecking done by the media organization) have (obviously) limited va pilue in contributing to the verifiability of an article, and one of the intentions behind the notability guidelines is to ensure that we have enough strong sourcing to back a decent article. I know it must be frustrating to be arguing here based on what feel like technicalities, but I think the Daily Record article does not factor into the notability calculus. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though {{|L236}}, WP:Primary doesn't preclude all interview, it notes depending on context. Surely the context is that a transcribed interview is a primary source, yet when someone is interviewed as part of an article in a newspaper, that is a secondary source - see WP:Secondary. And it certainly isn't routine. Routine would be a paragraph about an appointment - not an in depth piece at the time of an appointment. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: WP:Secondary, which you mention, states that a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (emphasis in original). I don't see how this interview does that. And my point about routine coverage is that if the interview portion was taken out of the article, the remaining portion would clearly be routine and trivial. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it again, that portion of the article is a bit more verbatim than I'd remembered. Still, there's a lot of borderline sources - and I don't think venerability is the actual issue here - more the bureaucratic barriers that inadvertently create systemic bias against those involved in women's soccer. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 19 April 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.