Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Galloway

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Galloway[edit]

Suspected self-authored biography; non-notable, no sourcing. Minkythecat (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established, and searches turn up only in American hockey, not Scottish running. (If he is the same person, then perhaps that would establish notability.) Frank | talk 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ATHLETE, WP:RS, WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Minkythecat. Non-notable Kalivd (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources --Kanonkas : Talk 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT. No available sources therefore no notability. Wikipedia is not here becuase
the scottish althletics board has no pubicly available record of previous national champions.
However noble that effort is that's not what this project is for--Cailil ^talk 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, there are no sources (listed in the article), but if the rationale for deletion is "a google search turns up absolutely nothing" as stated on the article's page, um, so what? Notoriety.. I mean Notability does not require Internet pages to be produced to prove its reality. Nor do the GUIDELINES of Wikipedia require Internet Notoriety. This definitely needs sources however. Too bad this stub will never be improved by those in his country who know of him and other athletes before it's ruthlessly deleted. - Nhprman 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note; Nhprman self-identifies as an inclusionist. Minkythecat (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you picked up on that. But so what? Is that a slur? I've restrained myself from calling others here "knee-jerk deletionists" because I'm nice and like to AGF. Why the "outing" of me as an inclusionist? I suppose that's like saying "leper" here on WP these days, huh? - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note; ~~Nhprman~~Minkythecat self-identifies as a Wikipedia Review member. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, and utterly irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more irrelevant than your comment about Nhprman. If you make ad hominem arguments then you should expect people to scrutinise your prejudices too. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do no such thing, although I'm a critic of the extreme deletionism of stubs that this kind of article represents (though in this case, it really does need proper attribution and I noted that already.) - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme deletionism? Given someone has already produced linkies showing the facts cited on the page to be somewhat incorrect, deletionism of stubs like this isn't required, more termination with extreme prejudice. Minkythecat (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I meant Minkythecat. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, it wouldn't be appropriate for this (or any) article to be expanded by "those in his country who know of him and other athletes". If the information isn't already available and verifiable, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, period. Nobody is saying it has to be an Internet-based source - just that it must be published and reliable. This doesn't really have anything to do with inclusionism or deletionism. Frank | talk 12:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about not needing to be online in the guidelines, but to be accurate, someone actually did say it must be Internet-based. The critereon posted on the article for deleting the articles said there was nothing to be found on Google about it. That, to me, is an irrelevant point, and whether something is on Google or not has no standing in WP policy. - Nhprman 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd put that a different way. Google - and most especially Google News and the Google News Archives - can definitely be used to establish notability. Lack of hits in any of those three areas is a bad sign, to be sure, but not definitive. (Google Books and Google Scholar are also good resources.) I have also done a search at a university library, which covers many news sources that Google does not, and I've also come up with no hits there. It's a US-based university, so it may be that the resources that would include Ryan Galloway aren't included. The key here is that the Internet is a tool, not an answer. There are many databases that search print materials - the materials themselves are NOT available on the Internet (or they are but aren't free), but the databases ARE available. In any permutation I've looked at, the subject of this article has not shown up, so I agree that notability hasn't been established. It would be a fairly simple matter for notability to be established - but first it has to be asserted, and that simply hasn't been done. Scotland has libraries and universities. If the subject is notable, someone there can find material that shows it. Even if the article is self-authored, although it would be in bad form to do so, notability could still be asserted - but even though this article has been nominated for deletion, no such attempt has been made. Frank | talk 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair analysis. - Nhprman 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N Artene50 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article author put this in the article; I think it belongs here:

This article has been added for the very reason that the scottish althletics board has no pubicly available record of previous national champions. This article is to demonstrate to others how a brief paragraph could be create for each of the countries previous great athletes and then create a ring of information linking these athletes and events as needed. How is anyone supposed to create such a wealth of information if people try and jump on it like this and say usles?? you don't have a clue what you are calling usless! for example, try and tell me who was the scottish u19 champion in 200m in 1994.. when your done trying you can see what i mean.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unsourced stub. - Nhprman 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. According to Scottish Athletics, the governing body for track and field in Scotland, the 200 m outdoor champion is "1991 Paul Greene (Aus) 21.74" as noted in the Scottish outdoor track and field champions 1986-2006 document. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've spent more time trying to validate any information provided. A personal best of 20.76 for the 200 m is asserted in the article. I've gone to the rankings at Power of 10 which is appears to be the high performance program for the UK. I've brought up the men's 200m rankings for all time which includes Scottish athletes as far as I can see. According to the ranking, there are several runners with 20.76 but none of them are Ryan Galloway, and the list does include entries that date back as fas as 1968. So what we have here is an athlete that claims a 1991 Scottish Championship in the 200 m. But a news article database search by another editor through google news, and unversity library resources turns up no mentions. The Scottish athletics documentation I've found directly contradicts the assertion as it lists a Paul Greene as the winner for 1991. And a search for the top UK results in the 200 m all-time has no entry for Galloway despite his personal best being within the range for the rankings. There is simply zero reliable sources to verify the content of the article, and one source that would indicate that at least one claim in the article is in fact not true. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is raised by this text "going on to enjoy a very succesful athletics carrear". Given nothing else is been sourced it just seems a bit odd if this person was kosher that they'd not mention any details of this successful career. Based upon all this, I suspect it's nothing more than a hoax article. Minkythecat (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:19, 14 June 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.