Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben Ginbey

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. Sufficient sourcing has been identified. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Ginbey[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)

Was sent to draft for improvement, but simply recreated in mainspace. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ROUTINE. The article itself makes no assertion of notability outside of a single event. We don't need an article on every single person that's ever played in sports.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with a quick Google search showing secondary sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] just on the first page with [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] on pages 2&3. Onel5969, Please stop using AfD as your cleanup ground. If it's important for you that articles will be well sourced and fleshed out, spend some time doing a quick Google search and add the references and info. --SuperJew (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SuperJew above. The nominator in question fails to WP:CONRED to keep their logs up, and edges ever closer to be considered for a topic ban from any article involving Australia. Storm machine (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SuperJew's sources are pretty damning (and I'll add, e.g. [12], [13], [14],[15], [16]). The nominator just doesn't seem to have put any effort into checking whether sources existed – not even to the extent of scrolling to the bottom of the page and checking the references list, because this source was in the article when nominated and yet it goes completely unmentioned in the nomination statement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They'd probably argue it's not independent under the argument that the AFL employs Ginbey, though personally I'm not convinced on that one as the league doesn't employ any of the players - the clubs do. --SuperJew (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Onel could make that argument – of course, it would be wrong, the writers at AFL Media are functionally independent from the AFL itself to the extent they went to the Fair Work Commission and won the right, against the AFL's wishes, to be represented by the journalists' union rather than being considered mere communications personnel. But they haven't actually advanced that argument in the nomination, so we can only speculate about their rationale, and given their lack of diligence in checking for other sources I see no reason to assume they have thoroughly evaluated this one. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 2 May 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.