Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lambert (hurler)

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lambert (hurler)[edit]

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

One source will never be enough to pass GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. @Johnpacklambert: This deletion nomination comes across as assessing notability only based upon the state of sourcing that was in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion (diff), rather than upon availability of sources. Note that per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main notability guideline page, topic notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Note that the most cursory of Google searches has provided articles such as [1], [2] and [3] in seconds. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- the present sourcing does not convince me in terms of notability or significance. Winning the Dublin Senior Hurling Championship is insufficient in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike as the nomination has been withdrawn. I also note that I concur with the nom that sports-specific guidelines are too lax. For example, a technical pass of WP:PORNBIO would not guarantee that the article is kept. I believe that same should apply to sports biographies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGAELIC.3: Hurlers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship. He played in several matches for the Dublin inter-county hurling team.
Why didn't the nominator read WP:NSPORTS before nominating? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In general thegeneral notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines. So the fact that I was aware of the notability guidelines for sports can not overcome the fact that the general notability guidelines are not met with one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What one source User:Johnpacklambert? Article has 3 now. And Northamerica100 provides 3 above, 2 of which appear to meet WP:GNG requirements. How is WP:GNG not met? Nfitz (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JPL your nomination demonstrated neither an awareness of WP:NGAELIC, nor any evidence that you had searched for other sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JPL You seem to have missed the point in my !vote above that topic notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. In other words, the subject is not automatically non-notable simply because only one source existed in the article when you nominated it for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - failure to provide a valid deletion rationale. Hack (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I see now that this person meets a specific set of notability criteria. At the same time I would point out that this article highlights that something needs to be changed in Wikipedia. It has been tagged as needing additional souces since 2008. That is for over 8 years. This is a biography of a living person where we need to be extra vigilant to not let stand unsouced material. Beyond this I would point out it is very frustrating when people ask "what one source". I was refering to the one source that existed in the article at the time I nominated it for deletion which is what the question I was responding to explicitly addressed. My underlying point is rhat if you read any notability guideline it most often says that the people in question are presumed to pass GNG even if the spur es are hard to find. However no where does anything indicate it. My point in my response to BHG was not to try and argue that this article should be deleted but to argue that it is possuble to hold the view and article should be deleted while having full knowledge of the sport specific guidelines in play. That was my point because I was responding to the question at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and BrownHairedGirl, as he appears to meet the WP:NGAELIC requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2017 (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.