Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles McAlister

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McAlister[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)

Fails to meet WP:GNG, the only mentions of him in secondary sources are trivial and not significant. CataracticPlanets (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dispassionately have to agree with nom. In terms of WP:GNG, the subject doesn't seem to meet the expected criteria. The independent coverage that is available (pretty much all of which seems to be included in the article itself) is not significant, and represents (for the most part) passing mentions in witness statements from the Bureau of Military History archives. The subject is not the primary topic in any of these references (or indeed in any other texts that I can find). Hence GNG is not met. In terms of WP:MILPERSON, the subject doesn't seem to have held a particularly high-rank, or have played a significant role in the events described. Or otherwise meet any of the related criteria. (The text of the article itself notes that he didn't actually take part in the Easter Rising, was hospitalised through a significant portion of the War of Independence, and held a somewhat administrative role in the Civil War). In general terms I would note that 50,000 officers and men served alongside him in the Civil War, and 15,000 alongside him in the War of Independence. I see nothing to suggest that he was any more notable than the tens of thousands of others involved. Hence NMILPERSON also isn't met. In terms of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the subject and text seems better suited to a family history archive than to this project. In short: delete. (Or maybe userfy. So the author can move it to Ancestry.com or similar. Which would seem to be more suited to this type of content). Guliolopez (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There is a lack of objective criteria - Arguments_for_deleting_non-notable_articles. Keeping this page will further the documentation of Irish historic events. The events took place during an era where there was no technology and so the subjective nature of existing documentation is questionable. This documents a minor character from major events in Irish history. Aspects of this article can be considered as an alternate view of the relevant notable events mentioned in the article. If historic events are only documented from the view of prominent figures, then it could result in a wooden type of history. Articles like this can provoke discussion and further enlightenment of historic events. The centenary of many of the events described occurs around this time therefore increasing the notability of this article.
The content in this article will help enrich the semantic web should wikipedia be striving towards developing a 'semantic web' or a 'semantic web browser'.
The cartoon image contained in the article, "Major "Mac" helps ref reconsider "decision"", would suggest that the subject was of notable interest at the time. As stated in the article the subject supported the playing off all sports in the Irish Army not just Gaelic games (GAA). This was contrary to the majority view. The playing of foreign sports is still debated within the GAA to this day, most recently Liam Miller's memorial match Liam Miller's tribute match. The subject would therefore be notable due to their choice to reject this notable rule.

-- John McAlister (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --[reply]

Comment. I don't normally like to respond to or query other's inputs to AfD discussions (on the basis that all editors are entitled to their opinion, and the right to express it, without having it questioned out-of-hand). However, as the above comment was your first/only/ever contribution to the project (and hence you may not be as familiar with project norms as perhaps others might be), I would highlight that notability is not inherited. Just because a subject was involved or associated with something notable (a debate on which sports should be played or even a war), that doesn't make them notable themselves. In your own words, a "minor character in major events" (or in the project's terms, a subject notable only for involvement in a single event) are specifically out of project scope. So that argument do not follow. Nor does the "put it all in and let search engines sort it out" (semantic web) argument. In fact, both of these arguments are specifically accounted-for in related guidelines. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest further research before deleting this article possibly with the help of Project Ireland members. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I re-listed this with the sports articles. He may be able to pass WP:GNG there as a member of the Davis Cup team. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Hawkeye7. Can you explain what you are talking about please? The article does not claim that McAlister was a member of Ireland 1923 Davis Cup team. Not least because he demonstrably was not. The statement made (unsupported by any references of any kind) is that McAlister simply went to a tennis match that Cecil Campbell was playing in. (Campbell was, of course, a member of the 1923 Davis Cup team, but Campbell is not the subject of this article.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. You're right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of references, even if not a lot of detail available. His tennis may meet SNG. Would be a shame to delete such a detailed article. Middledistance99 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I mentioned that I don't normally query other's contributions to AfD discussions, I am having a hard time following my own rule here. Because, even if "lots of detail" or "lots of references" were valid arguments in an AfD discussion (and they are not), there are demonstrably *not* a lot of references. And just 4 or 5 which actually refer to the subject in any way. Of the dozen or so references provided, and just by way of example, the reference provided for the subject's mobilisation in the Easter Rising makes no mention of the subject whatsoever. Nor does the link provided to support the claim that he lived with his family at Custume Barracks, which appears to be a photo of a building. And, what this webpage has to do with any of the text it is intended to support is absolutely anyone's guess (it is offered to support a quote attributed vaguely to someone speaking to the subject's wife's employer - and then only barely mentioned the latter). In general terms, of the references which might seem to contribute to notability, I would note that McAllister is mentioned three times (and then only in passing) in Boyne's 2015 book on Emmet Dalton. Only mentioned once in McDermott's 2001 work on the Belfast pogroms. And briefly in a footnote in Hopkinson's 2004 book on the Civil War. These latter references may (just about) support some of the claims in the text. But do not support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, Middledistance99, can you help me understand how "his tennis may meet SNG"? The WP:NTENNIS notability guidelines would expect that he have competed in an international team tournament (Davis Cup/etc), top professional tournament (Wimbledon), or otherwise hold a related record. The only thing the article claims is that the subject watched someone else play at Wimbledon (ie: he was a member of the audience - not a competitor). And that, vaguely, the subject "played tennis and golf". Playing a sport ("for fun/leisure") doesn't contribute to notability. Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the coverage to meet the GNG or the accomplishments necessary to show he meets any other notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great article. A no brainer!Bashereyre (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Bashereyre. Can you please provide an argument against the AfD nomination? "It's a great article" does not address the GNG, NMIL or other points raised by the nominator. And is specifically highlighted as an invalid AfD argument in the relevant guidelines. Also, respectfully, an article which relies almost entirely on unqualified and unverifiable "information from the family" is demonstrably not in keeping with the good/great article criteria, and would seem to highlight that the subject has not been the primary topic of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (If we have to rely on unpublished/family sources, then it should be a red flag that published sources are not available, and [if published sources are not available] a red flag that GNG/SIGCOV is a concern). Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't review the book sources, but I really don't see significant coverage in the sources provided, and the best ones appear WP:PRIMARY. Appreciate Guliolopez's contribution above. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:30, 28 August 2018 (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.