Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Giggs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Coredesat 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Giggs[edit]

Rhodri Giggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played for a fully professional club. Being related to a famous footballer does not confer notability (as noted in the Romeo Beckham AfD). The only thing left is him being arrested on the accusation of supplying cocaine, which I don't believe makes him notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the article states that he played for Livingston, but I could find no verification of this, perhaps they meant played for Livingston reserves. If no evidence can be supplied to show that he did play for Livingson then I believe that he is not notable. English peasant 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am curious about this Giggs, if you look at the references list on the article, you will see there are a number of references from a major news corporation known as the BBC. So clearly he exists and the BBC have gone and given him notability in his own right via association of being Ryan Giggs brother. Next question of mine, where do you class Bangor City F.C. in professional terms, because it seems they have played some European matches. If it turns out that Bangor City played Rhodri in one of their European matches, would this not also qualify him for notability? Govvy (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bangor are not fully-professional. The only clubs in the League of Wales which have been are Barry Town, TNS and Llanelli.[1] пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's situations like these that make me very very wary of the use of fully professional squads as deciding factors in situations of national first divisions... matt91486 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the external link to FCUM from the article carries an interview with Giggs in which he says he played two first-team games for Torquay as a 16-year-old. Doesn't say what sort of games, or what name he was using at the time, but if they were in a fully-pro competition then he would pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. This source has no record of him playing in a league game (as either Giggs or Jones), but I guess it could have been a cup game... пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing on allfootballers.com under either name either....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are clearly enough reliable sources such as the BBC and the Guardian which satisfy the "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." bit of WP:BIO so the fact that he doesn't qualify under WP:FOOTY really doesn't matter. John Hayes
    • Delete I've changed my mind on that, per comments below. John Hayestalk 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable as a footballer according to WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY. Notability isn't inherited otherwise I'm going to create myself as the 13th cousin 4 times removed to James Cook. All you're left with is being a drug-dealing estate agent, and again I'll ... He's worthy of a mention but only a small section of Ryan Giggs. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he is non-notable as a footballer, failing the standard by which we judge other players who don't happen to have famous relatives. So the only claims for notability are his criminal record and his famous sibling. Being drug dealer or getting convicted for assault don't normally confer notability and notability is not inherited. The fact that the article is well referenced doesn't really matter, I could write a well referenced article about Romeo Beckham or Enzo Zidane, but that would not mean that they were notable, just that the press obsession with celebrity has spread to obsession with their families too. English peasant 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone shows he satisfies WP:BIO as a footballer. The BBC references have him signing for League of Wales clubs (2) and petty crime (2), both these last headed "Giggs' brother ...". His minor criminal activities only attract the attention of the BBC because he's Ryan Giggs's little brother, and the Guardian reference is to one item in a list of abortive sting attempts by a journalist, this one perpetrated because Rhodri Giggs is Ryan Giggs's brother. Per nom, being related to a notable person does not confer notability. Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can anyone find out who played for Bangor in the 2000 UEFA Cup qualifies Round match where they lost to Halmstads BK 11-0 ? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First Leg - Mulliner, Johnson, Foster (Owen 82), Jargine, S Williams, R Williams, Rowlands, Hughes (Comley-Exceli 78), Roberts, Coady (E Williams 67), Bird. Second Leg - Mulliner, Johnson, Foster, E Williams, S Williams, R Williams (Coady 51), Rowlands, Hughes, Owen (Comley-Exceli 78), Hazelden (Bird 78), Cross). Courtsey of Rothmans Football Yearbook 2001-02 p742. - fchd (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers, doesn't look like he played. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wouldn't have mattered if he did. Bangor were not a fully pro team, so the notability criteria still weren't met. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is one of those situations that no one wanted to go through specifics for and thought I was crazy when we were debating the criteria. If he plays for a top national division and played in a European Cup match, I think notability should be conferred regardless of his team's semi-pro status. I was blown off in the debate in this regard, so it's not as if I'm bringing this up out of nowhere. I think (hypothetically) these things together coupled with his 'tabloid' notability would help to make him be notable. matt91486 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly, under the current rules, if an amateur team win the Champions League none of their players would be entitled to an article because of it, whereas they would almost certainly be notable (highly unlikely yes, but just for the sake of argument). But regardless we have to work to the current rules, and this isn't the place for it. John Hayestalk 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having offences deemed of interest to an intrusive press because of one's relations might be good enough for the tabloid's, but it is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I am going on weak keep, he passed WP:BIO basic notability having had publications on him in BBC, Guardian and News of the World. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would want to see an article about him that does not refer to his staus as Ryan's brother before I would believe that he had any newsworthiness in his own right. There have been many articles recently about Derek Conway's sons, but they have no claim to notability beyond their connection to their father. Kevin McE (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I read the news articles, they are all about Rhodri and they all do mention he is Ryan's brother, but the fact remains each article tells exactly what Rhodri has been doing and if you look at each article this is notability to Wales mainly. But the fact remains, Rhodri does pass the basic WP:BIO notability rules by having publications from sources such as I stated previously. Govvy (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I thought Wikipedia was an Encylcopedia so why can we not have articles about people that have been in the news for reasons that don't frankly matter. Isn't Wikipedia ment to contribute to the world, what if somebody is looking for Rhdori Giggs, do we turn them down? No, Wikipedia is ment to help others! Sharadjalota456 19:54, 17 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhodri_Giggs&oldid=1136108698"