Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rumney

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. While there is a large amount of discussion, it does not indicate that substantial quantities of reference material are available about this individual. This result should not be considered prejudicial against recreation should such material be in fact located in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rumney[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)

The only sources I can find are artwork, thus making this person not WP:NOTEWORTHY JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NAFL. The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NAFL only presumes notability; it looks like he fails GNG so not actually notable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

The article unambiguously satisfies WP:NAFL. Yes, this isn't a guarantee of notability. However, it does indicate that it would be unusual for the article to fail GNG, and thus puts more responsibility on the nominator to conduct a thorough check for sources.
Many entries in the The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers are substantive and Rumney's entry may well qualify as a source contributing to a GNG pass. Yes, it won't satisfy GNG on its own, but it's another sign that a pre-AfD source check should be more thorough than usual – just one more good-quality source would be enough to shut down a nomination.
Rumney's career occurred in the pre-Internet era and thus sources are much more likely to be offline, inaccessible from a quick Google search. Again, this doesn't prove such sources do exist, but it's another reason to avoid jumping to conclusions if Google doesn't turn up many results.
I'm unconvinced JTZegers has actually carried out a proper check for sources before nominating this article. A check of his contributions reveals he was preparing another AfD nomination on a completely different subject (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Forbes) beforehand, and apparently managed to become fully familiar with the notability guidelines for the AFL subject area, carefully evaluate the existing sources in the article, complete a thorough search for sources not in the article, and finally write and post a nomination statement in less than ten minutes. This is simply not plausible; the more likely explanation is that one or more of these components were badly rushed.

In JTZegers' nomination statement, he's also made reference to a completely irrelevant section of the notability guideline (WP:NOTEWORTHY, which discusses notability exemptions for content within articles or lists) and said his search results only turned up artwork – neglecting to mention these results are about a completely different Peter Rumney, who is an English artist, not an Australian footballer. Coupled with the remarkably quick time his research apparently took, it gives the impression that the extent of his pre-nomination search was to glance at the first page of Google's results for "Peter Rumney" and nothing else.

In summary, there are strong factors that suggest Rumney is notable, strong factors that suggest the nominator's search for sources was shallow at best, and strong factors that suggest such a shallow search would not be adequate to find GNG-satisfying sources if they did exist. – Teratix ₵ 06:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix Ok, but AfD is where you need to prove GNG sources exist (or at least demonstrate existence of a specific offline source that is highly likely to cover him). Continuing to pass along the burden of establishing notability to hypothetical future editors is not helping to build the encyclopedia. My own search uncovered literally nothing outside of a couple databases where the extent of biographical information is identical to that of our article. Presumption should go both ways: just as you can presume sources exist somewhere requiring offline access, you can also presume entities that have both access to those sources and a strong incentive to publish the information therein will do so. For example, Australianfootball.com explicitly uses The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as a source for many of their profiles; if there was substantive content on Rumney there surely it would appear on a site dedicated to documenting historical Australian footballers? Additionally, they say Acknowledgement is due to the wonderful project that is Trove, the National Library of Australia's (NLA) initiative to digitize and make accessible online its vast repository of content, most notably newspapers and magazines. Hidden within that inventory is a literal ‘Treasure Trove’ of material relating to the history of Australian football, and AF has made and will continue to make use of this material to provide as comprehensive a record of the game’s past as is practicable. Clearly they are actively tracking down offline local contemporaneous news coverage as well, so if all they can find on this person is what is contained on his profile then SIGCOV emphatically does not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as someone with zero background in Australian football, it took only 15 minutes for me to make the above determination. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption does not go both ways. Claiming Rumney isn't notable because AustralianFootball.com hasn't expanded his profile is akin to claiming Luke Shuey isn't notable because The New York Times hasn't written an article about him – an absence of significant coverage in one particular source does not equate to an absence of significant coverage everywhere. AustralianFootball.com repeatedly states that it's a work in progress, not a finished product, so it's unreasonable to assume the content in Rumney's current profile is all they can find. It's more likely that Rumney is not a particularly high priority for research; he's not a conspicuously famous player, and it's also not at all unusual for footballers' profiles on the site to have little content beyond basic statistics.

AfD is where you need to prove GNG sources exist (or at least demonstrate existence of a specific offline source that is highly likely to cover him). This is not true. All I need to show is that, given a reasonable amount of time, there is strong reason to think GNG-satisfying sources will emerge. (WP:NSPORTS FAQ #1) I don't necessarily need to prove they exist. Nor do I necessarily need to reference a specific source that is likely to satisfy GNG – although I did, in fact, reference Rumney's entry in The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers as such a source in my initial statement. – Teratix ₵ 08:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianFootball.com is a resource specifically dedicated to profiling every AFL footballer -- Rumney's lack of content in it is not at all comparable to an AFL player's lack of coverage by the NYT. FAQ #1 says very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. There is not a very strong reason to believe these sources exist. That he's included in a book purporting to [list] every footballer who has played the game at the elite level since the competition's first season does not suggest he has SIGCOV there (he played 5 games and scored 0 goals...why would they give nontrivial background on him??). The article has been around over 5 years; how long do we have to wait before his lack of GNG-meeting coverage is acknowledged? Many, many newspapers in Australia have been digitized and are free to search on trove.nla.gov.au (I got 171,001 hits spanning from 1850 to 2015 for newspaper articles containing both "football" and "Kilda"; 1,585 are from 1958 to 1975; and 174 from 1968 and 1969). Since a search for newspapers containing all of "Peter" "Rumney" "football" and "Kilda" from between 1958 and 1975 returned zero hits, are we just to assume that Trove just hasn't gotten around to digitizing the particular local newspapers that might have profiled him? If I flew to Australia and physically looked at the paper newspaper archives and didn't find anything, would the assumption now be that his SIGCOV was just never archived? At what point can we agree he isn't notable? JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My NYT analogy was solely an illustration of why it's inappropriate to treat lack of significant coverage in one particular source as lack of significant coverage everywhere. Replace NYT with the ABC, AFL.com.au, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian etc. if it makes the analogy easier to understand, or ignore the analogy entirely if it means you can better comprehend my point.

why would they give nontrivial background on him? Because he's played Australian rules football at an elite level with a prominent club, the very type of person that the encyclopedia is aiming to document?

are we just to assume that Trove just hasn't gotten around to digitizing the particular local newspapers that might have profiled him? Trove is a useful resource for digitised content, but it has limitations. Many newspapers published post-1954 are still in copyright and are thus not available through its online search because Trove hasn't made an agreement with the copyright holder. For example, The Age, a prominent Victorian newspaper that covered 1960s football, is only digitised up to 1954, and thus its coverage of Rumney would not appear on Trove. (Didn't the fact that only one Victorian publication appeared in your search for articles on a prominent Victorian club across 1958-1975 – a seventeen-year period – raise any red flags?)

The article has been around over 5 years; how long do we have to wait before his lack of GNG-meeting coverage is acknowledged? Well, NSPORTS FAQ #4 explains that editors have been "very liberal in allowing for adequate time" since Wikipedia lacks deadlines. It's not as if the article contains any unsourced or false content that urgently needs to be addressed.

If I flew to Australia and physically looked at the paper newspaper archives and didn't find anything, would the assumption now be that his SIGCOV was just never archived? No, that would be ridiculous; in that case, Rumney would have been definitely shown to fail GNG. – Teratix ₵ 00:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My NYT analogy was solely an illustration of why it's inappropriate to treat lack of significant coverage in one particular source as lack of significant coverage everywhere. My point is the NYT or any other newspaper isn't expected to profile AFL players, especially not in any detail, whereas that's literally the whole purpose of the AF website.

Because he's played Australian rules football at an elite level with a prominent club, the very type of person that the encyclopedia is aiming to document? Why is this argument valid for assuming coverage in the Encyclopedia but not for assuming there would be coverage on the AF website? AF would have even more reason to include details since they aren't publishing a physical book. And anyway, as far as I can tell only prominent V/AFL players are given more than a brief summary of their stats in the Encyclopedia; considering there were around 500 players just between 1968 and 1970 (and 42 from St Kilda alone) who appeared in more games I'm going to guess Rumney is not the subject of an extensive biography.

What kind of SIGCOV is even expected in The Age? Everything I've seen there from my institutional access has been fully routine match reports, with barely a sentence dedicated to a single player and certainly nothing that could even partially contribute to GNG. For example: July 26, 1968: "Rumney, who played his first game last week, has gone back to the reserves." The longest mention I could find was this from March 13, 1967: "Two 17-year-old recruits, Peter Rumney, from Brighton, and Jim O'Dea, Noble Park, gave displays that suggested both could make a strong bid for places on the St. Kilda list this season. Rumney, at centre half-back, had the call over Jack Austin, and O'Dea was far too good on a half-back flank for State amateur forward Geoff Ward." I am still far from convinced this person received sufficient attention to achieve notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's literally the whole purpose of the AF website. Just because AustralianFootball.com has the stated purpose of providing fully detailed profiles of top-level Australian rules footballers, it does not follow that the current state of every player's profile reflects the full extent of information available – because the site is a work in progress. Much like the purpose of Wikipedia's articles is to cover all notable subjects, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a subject lacking an article is not notable – because the site is a work in progress.

Why is this argument valid for assuming coverage in the Encyclopedia but not for assuming there would be coverage on the AF website? I've never claimed that we should assume Rumney is significantly covered in the Encylopedia. I've merely said that, considering the nature of the publication, there is a reasonable possibility that he is, and we should not assume he is not covered without actually consulting the source. Sure, Rumney very probably won't have a multi-page, intricately detailed biography, but there's a reasonable possibility the coverage will satisfy GNG.

Thanks for checking out those excerpts from The Age. You might not think much of them, but in my view they're genuinely useful for expanding the article and showing Rumney meets GNG. Take the March 1967 excerpt: it gives Rumney's original club, it explains his position, it gives the author's opinion on not only Rumney's performance but also his future footballing prospects – the sort of analysis that goes beyond the routine. It mentions Rumney "had the call" over his opponent Jack Austin – I can't read the full article for context, but that seems likely to be Jack L. Austin, who had played top-level VFL football for St Kilda in 1966 – so Rumney was outplaying footballers with VFL experience at the age of 17, which seems to be highly significant! And that's just one excerpt. – Teratix ₵ 09:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suppose I can see your earlier points. However, the coverage in The Age is definitely not significant...if that's the benchmark sports editors are using for meeting GNG it is waaaay off from that of any other biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you assert it isn't significant, but I have pointed out that it contains quite a bit of salient information and non-routine analysis despite its brevity. In any case, it can at least be taken as an indication that coverage of Rumney seems to become increasingly significant as our search goes deeper. – Teratix ₵ 04:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then what other newspapers will actually contain SIGCOV? What sources are used for other players from his time period? JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)'[reply]

(This question assumes that the extracts from The Age are not SIGCOV, a claim you have not actually made any arguments for beyond bare assertions). Any other Victorian newspaper that covered 1960s football (e.g. The Sun News-Pictorial) or a football-specific publication such as the Football Record. (I usually edit Australian rules football articles that are closer to the modern era, so I'm not sure of an exhaustive list). – Teratix ₵ 05:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Age extracts are all 1 or 2 sentences describing his contribution to a particular match, or remarks on the prospects of a team after acquiring a slate of recruits. None of them are direct, in-depth discussions about Rumney or his background. This and this are the sorts of article considered SIGCOV. See also this AfD on a Norwegian footballer whose combined coverage here, here, and here was deemed "just about sufficient ... to satisfy GNG". Another Norwegian footballer similarly scraped by with what was considered in-depth coverage but with the caveat of it being local. The profiles of Bill Barrot in The Age from 1 May 1968, 16 and 19 April 1971, and 23 July 1975 would also very likely contribute -- note that in each of these there are 15+ hits for "Barrot" within the article. In contrast, you can see a search for "Rumney" between 1965 and 1980 in Australia returns no articles with more than 5 hits (all of them about other Rumneys), and the most Peter receives is 3 (in two articles, the one I quoted from 26 July 1968, and another mentioning his playing amateur for Prahran in 1973). All the rest have 1 or 2 hits (one from SMH reveals Harold Rumney is his father, which is interesting but does not contribute to notability whatsoever). JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment (already voted above), and many will say "so what", "notability isn't inherited" or "other stuff exists" to it. 13881 players have played in the AFL/VFL since 1897. We have articles on every single one of them. About 3400 played 5 games or less (Rumney played 5). I know this is probably just a red flag to the deletionists to think they've got a lot more of these to do, but isn't there any benefit to having full sets? No redlinks? Are we really going to spend the next few years slowly undoing a decades worth of work? They will never digitise every newspaper from every era. We'll never be able to read every club history book or game day program. That's why we have the SNGs. That's why we presume notability if it can be proven they reached a certain level. It will be a sad day if the full set is broken up. The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope, why not curate them in lists with redirects? A large proportion of those players will never have any further information added to their stubs that couldn't easily be contained in a list or football club table -- what difference does it make if someone searching a name is redirected to an appropriate page where they would get the same details? The same data are also already available on multiple other sites and books, so it's not like we are providing novel content or context. If the only thing that can be verified about a person is statistics, then having a standalone article on them makes us indistinguishable from a directory. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's been done, it does no harm, it provides an opportunity for anyone to add information later, and our coverage of early-mid 20th century topics is poor, and will only get worse if we rely on the minimal digitised papers from the day. Why destroy it? A couple of examples. Don Fergusson, was an Olympic rower, but not a medal winner, so he had a page created. I came across it because it was in a death category on en.wikipedia, but no death date was recorded in wikidata. Looking into it, I found we had his surname spelled incorrectly and he actually became a police deputy commissioner whose suicide was front page news in 1970. Ian Mathers is another few game footballer, who, because he had a page due to that, I was able to find and add that he was highly regarded, including national awards, for leading brass bands. I'm here to provide information. Why are you here? The-Pope (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These stubs aren't being "destroyed" when the exact same information is contained in a list. There are plenty of people who expand articles out of list items and would not need to randomly come across a standalone page to do so. And anyway, the examples you provide would survive AfD because coverage could be found. I've searched the newspapers from Victoria for SIGCOV of Rumney and it doesn't exist, despite ample coverage of other St. Kilda players from the same seasons. This article can be redirected to one of the St. Kilda lists/tables, making it more navigable and easier to contextualize for anyone searching for him. WP:DIRECTORY, WP:BLP, and WP:N all apply here -- which policies and guidelines support keeping this stub? Is there any justification for WP:IAR beyond WP:NOHARM? JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2021 (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.