Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hall (snooker player)

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. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Hall (snooker player)[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)

Declined PROD with addition of one dodgy reference. No indication that this player ever took up a tour place if they were offered one.

The article makes claims about the player making the fifth round of qualifying at the 2004 World Snooker Championship, where they were in the first qualifying round. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and I don't see how they are particularly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is nothing more than dirty tricks being played by Lee Vilenski, which I have come to expect after our little disagreement here [1]. He mentions that the source added is 'dodgy', but neglects to inform us that this same source has been cited in many other snooker-related articles, without Lee Vilenski ever challenging its validity. The one and only occasion on which he has done so is when the article in question is one I have created.

At first, it seems as if Lee has a good point; a cursory glance at the plethora of snooker articles we allow without question reveals that he does not. David Hall may only have spent a year as a professional, and never won a match, and he may only have been ranked 96th in the world - so if he is not notable, why do we have articles for Riley Parsons and Amine Amiri, for example? You see, this is not about the notability of an individual.

Had CueTracker, the best snooker results and statistics archive in the world, not been blacklisted three years ago, he would have been able to see for himself the brief - but real - career of David Hall. CueTracker was blacklisted, of course; I wonder who vociferously advocated for that decision? None other than Lee Vilenski. Although we are active members of the same small Wikiproject, he has never had anything to do with me on Wikipedia - that is, until the incident I refer to above. I find this very strange indeed. What is also strange is that the deletion discussion I have referred to was the second AfD for that particular article; it had been deleted in a prior AfD, but restored by Lee Vilenski for no reason whatsoever. The user who had created the article was Lee Vilenski. I am beginning to see a pattern of corruption, a user taking full advantage of the administrator status he was granted by common consent - abusing that status for his own benefit and for that alone.

I created the article David Hall, and I will defend to the hilt my decision to do so - but, were I an administrator, I wouldn't dream of going against the consensus reached in an AfD, if my peers agreed that I had been wrong. Humility goes a long way. At this rate, Lee Vilenski is not going to travel very far. Montgomery15 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - outside of someone telling me you partook in that AfD which wasn't really that big of a deal I have no idea about your previous edits. Did we have a disagreement at that AfD? I'm pretty sure I did a !vote, and then never returned to the page. I haven't used any administrative powers at all and the AfD is based on my WP:BEFORE search finding no evidence of the player being professional, which is the bare minimum for our SNG (and finding just one source shows that they also do not meet GNG). Also, other RS that publish the world rankings for 2004/05 don't mention this player at all, let alone as high as 96th! [2], [3], [4] etc. The rest, quite frankly borders on a personal attack, and I suggest you redact. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by what I wrote, because I believe it to be the truth. 'Best wishes', Montgomery15 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that I haven't been involved in any blacklisting on any webpage, least of all cuetracker (the latest discussion is here where I had barely been a member for a few days) and dates back to 2008. Could you point me into the direction of what I might have done to abuse the administrative toolset. As I've stated before I haven't used the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already have - the Johnathan Bagley article was deleted after an AfD, but for whatever reason, you - the author of the article - took it upon yourself to undelete it. This place is just about as democratic as any in the world, so why would somebody in your position see fit to go against a democratic decision, knowing beyond any reasonable doubt - as you did - that the article had no place here? Montgomery15 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG calls for multiple sources. Thus one source can never pass GNG on its own. Wikipedia should not be including articles just because they are included in one database somewhere, we need multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked NewsBank and the British Newspaper Archive and not found any significant coverage of Hall. I believe that there were both professionals and amateurs taking part in the 2004 World Championship. The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History (2004) says Hall reached the 8th qualifying round in 2004, but their numbering is often out of line with other sources as they tend to include "pre-qualifying" in counting rounds. The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 says he entered at the "last 272" stage and lost in the "last 144" round in 2004. The latter source has him as "unranked" from 2002 to 2005. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2020 (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.