Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Nolan

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Nolan[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)

Scramble of unreliable and primary sources, and no other sources can be found. There is no suitable article to merge or redirect, and the only option is deletion. Therefore, it violates WP:N and WP:RS. Equal width (C) 03:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NGAELIC, "significant coverage is likely to exist for [..a..] Hurler who has played in the National Hurling League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship". As that is the case here, I did a very quick WP:BEFORE search and found more than a few sources to support the text and a claim to notability under this guideline. I have added some of the sources I found to the article itself. Others were redundant, so I didn't add them. I personally do not understand (and cannot support) the nominator's assertion that "no other sources can be found". At all... Guliolopez (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the sources that I didn’t! After all, I don’t find sources easily. Equal width (C) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After finding who made all these sources, they seem to be either unreliable or primary sources, and that mix deserves deletion. Equal width (C) 06:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equalwidth, I intervene here to note that the sources are neither unreliable nor primary (they are not Nolan's website or Facebook, but include county newspapers, for example, which are usually good on local topics, and have proper editorial control). You are fairly new to the project, in time and by edit activity, and perhaps have not had time to fully study the policies, but it is important that if you base a statement on a policy or definition, you are clear on its meaning (otherwise you can state an opinion, but without claimed policy justification). SeoR (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, county newspapers are primary sources and some other ones are unreliable Equal width (C) 08:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper report, even a local one, can be secondary if it includes commentary / analysis, while some of the references, being national papers (no reporter there on the day) or national broadcaster, are definitely secondary, often drawing on more local reporting. And it is important that both types of source have good uses, and all the sources there are RS-grade (...has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, ...is published by a reputable publisher, ...is directly about the subject, ...is a third-party or independent source, ...has a professional structure in place ... such as editorial oversight). Most Gaelic sportspeople are captured at least partly due to local and national newspapers / radio / TV. SeoR (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think sources are clearly showing a topic meeting NGAELIC, albeit they mostly lack depth - they do provide evidence that the person meets the bar of "active in inter-county play". Some people may question the standard set, but it has stood a long time, and has led to many solid articles, and some day this one might grow to such too. SeoR (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it meets NGAELIC doesn't mean that it meets GNG and WP:PRIMARY. And it also doesn't meet those policies Equal width (C) 08:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As you note Equalwidth, NGAELIC doesn't confer "automatic" notability. It is just an indicator that WP:GNG might be met. That is true. However, and per my note above, it seems (to me) that WP:GNG *is* met in this case. Also, respectfully and considering that you are a very new editor, I would suggest that you re-read the WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY guidelines (as your continued assertions, that independent national and regional newspapers are to be considered "unreliable and primary sources", are not in keeping with my understanding of those guidelines). Guliolopez (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems like WP:GNG and WP:PRIMARY are not met in this case. Equal width (C) 10:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also do NOT consider myself a new editor. Thinking whether you are new to the project or not can change your Wikipedia behavior. Thinking that you are not a new editor when you have less than 200 (maybe 250) edits can make you more efficient than those who consider themselves new to the project in that edit milestone. Equal width (C) 10:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is flawed - "accounts written by people who are directly involved" means you can't use a blog written by a player about the match s/he played. It absolutely does not exclude a local newspaper reporter's article on a match. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NGAELIC and WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:44, 18 November 2023 (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.