Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hugman

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. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hugman

[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:GNG, especially in that significant coverage of the article subject is lacking, and fails WP:BIO. Created originally by a WP:SPA and significantly edited by the article subject, particularly recently, attempting to own the article. Reads like a resume and is primarily promotional of the article subject's publications. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Boxing, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainly written by the subject and highly promotional. Definitely full on COI and with only one reference does not verify notability. ww2censor (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree about the promo but we fix that issue via editing, not deletion. I'm going to remove the promo stuff, and fix it up a bit. Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) ^Adding Per WP:NEXIST: The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first reference is the only one where Hugman is actually the subject. The second mentions Hugman in two sentences, the third doesn't even mention Hugman as it is about Boxing Monthly and not Hugman. The fourth is about one of Hugman's books and, again, not Hugman himself. There is a grand total of one reference specifically about Hugman and it is archived because it is a deadlink. I think this fails WP:NBASIC. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...Hugman co-founded Boxing Monthly and was the launch editor. The magazine lasted 31 years. His work is historic. I highly recommend that the delete voters read the guideline WP:Author because Hugman fits #2, #3 & #4 under Creative Professionals. He is unequivocally notable. Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Monthly itself has one deadlink as a source and that was a link to a subscription page. Considering that the magazine itself isn't currently meeting WP:NOTE you can't coatrack Hugman into notability by using it. In any case, notability is not inherited. #2 of WP:AUTHOR is "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" which doesn't apply here. I don't see how 3 or 4 quality either. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Can you provide reliable sources? If he is so historic there must be sources to verify his notability. If you have sources please add them to the article. ww2censor (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He easily satisfies WP:Author, as I've already mentioned. I neither have access to a library or old newspapers/magazines in order to do the kind of research you want done, nor do I have the time to spend on it. Rest assured, the sources exist. I already found a few sources in the limited amount of time I have to contribute here. Keep in mind that Hugman was born in 1941; therefore, editors need to consider the years he was a pioneering statistician, and author of over 60 books, annuals, etc. Those days were not like today's online social media; rather, those were the days of print media. His body of work alone screams of notability. Other authors of various magazines, reputable journals, reference works, and sports books have frequently cited him. Quick example: this Cambridge article cites his book (footnote 41). Dig into archived newspapers. See my quickie list.

Over 118 sources to cite:

Black Country Evening Male, pg 69, 04-09-1982
Daily Post, pg 24, 12-20-1987;
Liverpool Echo, pg 70, 03-27-1993;
Hull Daily Mail, pg 52, 10-29-1988;
The Daily Telegraph, pg 45, 11-18-1998; "The 20,000 in a league of their own", Bryon Butler, "Talking Football"
The Independent, pg 63, 11-18-1996;
The Guardian, pg 72, 09-28-2000;
Cambridge Evening News, pg 50, 11-02-1990
The Birmingham Post, pg 16, 10-30-1992

Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the article using these sources and explain how they show significant coverage of the subject? I can then re-consider. Giant Snowman 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only I had the extra time, I would happily oblige. I did remove the promo language; however, boxing and football are not in my area of interest. You are welcome to use any or all of the sources I provided in my comments, and in the list below. I have even included more sources today, and highly recommend a refresh read of WP:NEXIST to the delete ivoters. This BLP should never have been an AfD nom. Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the multiple COIs, he is an authority in football statistics, [1], [2], you will need to look around for the right kind of citation to build the article correctly. But WP:NAUTHOR clearly states.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;

His published works fall into concept of sports statistics, he is cited by multiple organisations for this. Btw, @GiantSnowman: I am surprised you would say there is no notability for this person when I've even seen you cite his works. Yes there is a degree of primary sourcing surrounding the article, but that shouldn't negate his importance towards sports statistics in his fields. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how somebody running a reputable website means they are notable? Giant Snowman 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...how many times has Hugman been cited in WP? Regardless, here's another source, this time it is one that is critical of Hugman's work: Playing Pasts. But wait...there's more!

The Independent, 12-17-1993. Specific to this BLP, WP:NEXIST also states that the evidence must show the topic has gained significant recognition. Recognition includes one's work being cited by other authors, as well as thanked, appreciated and/or recognized in their books. Internet Archive produced 90 results for Barry Hugman, and I reviewed quite a few books and forwards, as well as full paragraphs by other authors who provided recognition of Hugman's contributions. See following examples:
(pg 194) The Encyclopedia of Boxing (1989) by Gilbert E. Odd:] "In 1985 Barry Hugman produced his British Boxing Yearbook, an extensive volume containing records and facts covering British fighters and their contests since the turn of the century. A comprehensive and invaluable volume for all connected with the fight game in a world-wide capacity. This has become an annual volume, subsequent editions having appeared each year since."
(Page 19) The official Football Association non-League club directory. (1999) "It was at this stage that another friend, Barry Hugman, influenced the book’s future.

Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I didn't mention the website in the regards as to your reply to my last post and Atsme is a long standing editor who has covered the same as what I am saying, the qualifier here is the Books Hugman has published. Hence why I point to NAUTHOR. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet GNG? Giant Snowman 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Atsme and Govvy. Clearly notable sports writer and historian with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Atsme, appears to have WP:SIGCOV. Per Govvy, appears to also pass WP:NAUTHOR. Since either would be sufficient to presume notability under WP:N, and the promo was easily dealt with by editing, I see no persuasive reason to delete. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG per above coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2024 (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.