Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Ainsworth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) Guoguo12--Talk-- 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Ainsworth[edit]
- Ron Ainsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely minor Rugby player (only four games) with not enough significant reliable secondary source coverage to meet notability Sadads (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per WP:NSPORTS, he's notable. He played in the premier rugby league competition of his time. That guideline exists to AVOID AfDs like this, as it assumes that if you play sport at a suitable level, then somewhere, maybe not googleable, maybe not online, there will be sufficient coverage. St George is a big club, there are probably yearbooks, club histories and maybe papers from the day that also cover him (none of which I have access to), but for now, an index-like coverage proving that he played at the top level is sufficient. The-Pope (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying four games is enough! That seems silly, lets wait for further comment. At the very least, he should be merged into a list or something, Sadads (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The player has "appeared in at least one match of a fully professional domestic Rugby league competition" and hence satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby league. Nothing more needs to be said really. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets the sports notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as much as I don't like how WP:NSPORTS says any number of games for top professional level. this guy clearly passes. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's worth noting that WP:NSPORTS states that rugby league players are only "presumed notable" if they've played at the professional level - this doesn't meant that they're always notable. Given that none of the sources provided in the article (which can be assumed to be reasonably comprehensive thanks to the use of the NLA's Trove search of old newspapers) provide any biographical details on Ainsworth beyond a few sentences and statistics on his short and unremarkable playing career, I don't think that notability is established here. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are attempting to create wriggle-room where none exists. The guideline is unequivocal: one-game professional players ARE presumed notable. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, no deferral to secondary guidelines. Please accept the guideline in the spirit it was written. If you are going to prefer other guidelines, what is the point of having a relevant, primary guideline in the first place? WWGB (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is always wiggle room, because there Are No Firm Rules on Wikipedia. I have to agree with Nick-D's assessment, all of the sources are fairly insignificant, even though there are sideways mentions of Ainsworth, they aren't about him but the team. I think he should be deleted or merged to a player list, he does not warrent his own article Sadads (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be blunt, I don't think invoking IAR helps your cause (and I doubt that is what Nick-D was implying). Although the sources are not significant coverage, they do verify that Ainsworth played rugby at the highest level. Although Nick-D asserts that trove nla is comprehensive, I have found that to be far from the case. As it has been verified, it can be presumed that Ainsworth is notable and that reliable sources exist to prove that (whether those sources are online is another matter). Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I evoked IAR because the idea that notability guidelines should not be changed or taken to be the final straw is, frankly, bullock. Notability needs to be judged in a case by case basis and the 3 newspaper articles only show that he was expected to need to do a lot for the team, and that he is a temporary substitute player, which the team obviously didn't use very much. Whether or not he actually did anything is not verified, and all that this article does is present trivial information. That the databases are the only verification that he actually did anything also suggests that this article meets several points at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (3 and 5 mostly), Sadads (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asserting that 'trove nla is comprehensive' - my post said that the search for sources was 'reasonably comprehensive' thanks to it's use. It includes a few newspapers in areas where Rugby League is popular, so the minimal coverage of this guy in them can be assumed to be representative. Arguing that he's notable on the basis of sources no-one can actually find seems a weak argument to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I evoked IAR because the idea that notability guidelines should not be changed or taken to be the final straw is, frankly, bullock. Notability needs to be judged in a case by case basis and the 3 newspaper articles only show that he was expected to need to do a lot for the team, and that he is a temporary substitute player, which the team obviously didn't use very much. Whether or not he actually did anything is not verified, and all that this article does is present trivial information. That the databases are the only verification that he actually did anything also suggests that this article meets several points at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (3 and 5 mostly), Sadads (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be blunt, I don't think invoking IAR helps your cause (and I doubt that is what Nick-D was implying). Although the sources are not significant coverage, they do verify that Ainsworth played rugby at the highest level. Although Nick-D asserts that trove nla is comprehensive, I have found that to be far from the case. As it has been verified, it can be presumed that Ainsworth is notable and that reliable sources exist to prove that (whether those sources are online is another matter). Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is always wiggle room, because there Are No Firm Rules on Wikipedia. I have to agree with Nick-D's assessment, all of the sources are fairly insignificant, even though there are sideways mentions of Ainsworth, they aren't about him but the team. I think he should be deleted or merged to a player list, he does not warrent his own article Sadads (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are attempting to create wriggle-room where none exists. The guideline is unequivocal: one-game professional players ARE presumed notable. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, no deferral to secondary guidelines. Please accept the guideline in the spirit it was written. If you are going to prefer other guidelines, what is the point of having a relevant, primary guideline in the first place? WWGB (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge per Nick-D's cogent argument. The deeply flawed WP:NSPORTS can be used to claim that the subject is notable but "without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" I find it hard to see how this article meets WP:GNG nor how a decnt article can be written. I also find it difficult to see how an article that basically rewrites the infobox in prose actually improves the encyclopedia. A better solution for these types of articles would be to redirect to a relevant list, if one can be identified. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby league.Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - as per Doctorhawkes. GW(talk) 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He meets the notability guidelines, so he has to stay unless the guidelines are changed. Mattlore (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm surprised that this was relisted, since the consensus can't get much clearer than this. You know, I'm not entirely crazy about WP:ATHLETE either, but the idea, that "presumed notable" is a loophole for argument runs contrary to the entire idea behind subject specific guidelines. If you begin trying to prove that this player with only 4 games shouldn't be notable because you can't find a lot of coverage from 1946, but this other one who played 4 games in 2006 should be notable because he's all over the internet, it defeats the purpose of presumed notability. If WP:ATHLETE strikes someone as a silly, foolish, dumb, what-were-they-thinking policy... then work at changing the policy. Mandsford 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but AFD cases are a good place to start discussion about the need to change guidelines, if the consensus shows that certain articles don't meet notability yet the guidelines do, then the guidelines should change. Notability discussions on AFD do not hinge soly upon the topic specific guidelines but on the item itself, Sadads (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough, I probably don't disagree with you and Nick-D and Guoguo-12 that WP:ATHLETE should change, nor do other participants who said "Keep" necessarily think that it's fine the way it is. But it most certainly won't be changed with Mr. Ainsworth's case. WP:OUTCOMES can be changed here, but not policy. Relisting the article is just going to reinforce the consensus that we follow written policy, whether we like it or not. If you want to invite our comments when you folks do take up a policy discussion about changing the way things are, I think you'll find that a lot of persons who comment on sports articles here will take interest there. Right now, notices of active proposals to change policy are hidden about 3/4 of the way down in a little box next to "Before nominating an article", which is probably why the AfD crowd never goes to those things. Good luck to you over there. Mandsford 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep I'm not quickly seeing why this discussion was relisted. On the surface, it looks like the only possibility is that enough 'Delete' !votes might be attracted to change the consensus from 'Keep' to "No consensus'. Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, professional rugby league player. And lets also make clear that he's a rugby league player, not a rugby player, and the nominator messing that up more or less underlines how much effort was put into this AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Still, as far as I can tell there is hardly any difference between a rugby and rugby league player. Remember, we are writing for an audience which need not be familiar with the specific sport in order to learn something from the article. As far as I can tell, as someone who hardly follows sports to any degree, I find nothing that particularly signifies notability of the player. It's not like we write articles about every person that ever writes novels and gets them published by big companies, instead we rely on the degree of coverage from outside sources. I do know novels and novelist articles, and if Ainsworth were a novel or novelist, he would be deleted, Sadads (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, if you're going to make comments that you don't know the difference between a rugby and rugby league player, doesn't that pretty much underscore that you're probably not the best qualified person to make the call? Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Your difference page suggests no difference in notability. What someone does is far less important then how well that we can discuss them based on the sources. All of the sources presented thus far are trivial, therefore our coverage of Ainsworth can be no more than trivial, because he himself is trivial. Again, returning to something I am familiar with and which, I think, everyone can relate: are you suggesting that every author who publishes one book with a major press is 100% notable, even if their only referencess are simple listings that their books were published in some specialist publication which talk about original price, publisher and genre? That is about what you are saying with Ainsworth, he had a basic value, role and function having participated in 4 games, and that is all we verify, therefore he must have been important at some level, because he existed. Wait a minute, is every sports reporter notable then, especially if they are related to "rugby league"? I mean if they reported on Rugby league players they must be notable ! (sarcasm) Really, does anyone else not see the inconsistency of this argument with other Wikipedia policies? Sadads (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these analogies with authors and sports reporters are spurious. Ainsworth meets the guideline at WP:NSPORTS#Rugby league. That's it, all over red rover! If you think the guideline is too generous, make your case over there and stop cherry picking individuals who meet the agreed notability requirement. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a guideline! And besides, I am arguing he doesn't meet The Basic Criteria Per NSPORTS (which every article has to meet throughout Wikipedia). Actually, rereading the NSPORTS, Ainsworth clearly falls into the Routine Coverage problem, Sadads (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these analogies with authors and sports reporters are spurious. Ainsworth meets the guideline at WP:NSPORTS#Rugby league. That's it, all over red rover! If you think the guideline is too generous, make your case over there and stop cherry picking individuals who meet the agreed notability requirement. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your difference page suggests no difference in notability. What someone does is far less important then how well that we can discuss them based on the sources. All of the sources presented thus far are trivial, therefore our coverage of Ainsworth can be no more than trivial, because he himself is trivial. Again, returning to something I am familiar with and which, I think, everyone can relate: are you suggesting that every author who publishes one book with a major press is 100% notable, even if their only referencess are simple listings that their books were published in some specialist publication which talk about original price, publisher and genre? That is about what you are saying with Ainsworth, he had a basic value, role and function having participated in 4 games, and that is all we verify, therefore he must have been important at some level, because he existed. Wait a minute, is every sports reporter notable then, especially if they are related to "rugby league"? I mean if they reported on Rugby league players they must be notable ! (sarcasm) Really, does anyone else not see the inconsistency of this argument with other Wikipedia policies? Sadads (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, if you're going to make comments that you don't know the difference between a rugby and rugby league player, doesn't that pretty much underscore that you're probably not the best qualified person to make the call? Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Still, as far as I can tell there is hardly any difference between a rugby and rugby league player. Remember, we are writing for an audience which need not be familiar with the specific sport in order to learn something from the article. As far as I can tell, as someone who hardly follows sports to any degree, I find nothing that particularly signifies notability of the player. It's not like we write articles about every person that ever writes novels and gets them published by big companies, instead we rely on the degree of coverage from outside sources. I do know novels and novelist articles, and if Ainsworth were a novel or novelist, he would be deleted, Sadads (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Which part of the basic criteria for sports are you arguing? Let me quote: "Notability guidelines on sportspersons...Generally acceptable standards...Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.... meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below..." Here's what's written below: "Rugby league... A player, coach, or referee of rugby league football is presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one competitive international match between Full members of the RLIF and/or Full or Associate Members of the RLEF (see Notes 1 & 2), or Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, or Have have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional domestic Rugby league competition: National Rugby League (see Note 3), or Super League (see Note 3) including Challenge Cup appearances, or Co-operative Championship Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG." "Note 3: or their earlier iterations in the UK, Australia or New Zealand". I can't believe that we have to even quote that. It's truly regrettable that an administrator turned this into a lengthy argument by relisting it for further comment... he or she opened a Pandora's box full of arguments that you can make about why we shouldn't follow what's referred to in WP:N as a "subject specific guideline". There's one good argument about why we should, however: Because it's a guideline, and editors and admins follow the guidelines. Mandsford 13:30, 26 February 2011 (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.