Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Priest

Add links
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. Sandstein 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Priest[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

William Priest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further to this, try a search on Alec Priest on Papers Past, focussing on post 1909. Seems he was a doctor, captained the Otago schools team and was probably at Varsity - same as Hollings - which has some nice sourcing associated with it. And that's a first skim through. I wonder if this was included in the BEFORE? If you're dealing with New Zealanders from pre-WW2 Papers Past really needs to be part of the checking Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there's plenty: this for example. More than that as well - it'll take a while as it involves a tricky search (Priest isn't as exclusive as Holling), but we'll get there with this one. It'll end up as a keep I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formally changing my opinion to strong keep. He's close to notable for his medical work, let alone cricket and there is so much more that I've not had a chance to look through - literally thousands of newspaper hits. I'm absolutely certain that there will be obituaries that are not online but would clearly be available in paper archives - I don't think this; I'm certain of it. Papers Past online is less helpful after the 50s and he kept working until the 70s - a local researcher would certainly be able to turn up more.
New Zealanders, it seems, are either utterly anonymous or, more often than not, do marvellous things and generate a tonne of press coverage. They really need looking up properly, especially chaps from this sort of era. But it takes time - I first edited the article today at UTC 15:24. My last edit was at 22:14. I didn't do much else today. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker I believe WP:ANI would be a better venue for that sort of suggestion rather than an AfD discussion page. I see no reason to presume that the statement from the nominator A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. is false in any case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Highly inappropriate behaviour by NGS here. WP:BEFORE doesn't require me to dig through archives. And regardless, the one source cited thus far is not enough to meet GNG. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it does. When I nominate articles for deletion, I always check Newspapers.com. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes sources are much more clear and obvious to some users as they are for others. The WP:CRIC project is often, as has been demonstrated on many occasions, very capable of finding sources. Sources aren't obvious for everyone and it's worth bringing these queries to attention via WT:CRIC before sending to AfD. Bobo. 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source provided by Blue Square Thing is three brief sentence of coverage in an article covering a number of cricketers, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. In addition, WP:GNG requires multiple sources. A redirect is not suitable, as there was also a William Priest who worked with Charles Bell. BilledMammal (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's really quite a lot more. It'll involve substantial work (again) so I'll need some time, but I think we'll have more than enough when everything comes together. These take time, which is something I'm struggling with just now. But I think I'm unlikely to say there's plenty if there's not, aren't I? From my past history with this sort of chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Blue Square Thing: I believe you, but we have different definitions of WP:SIGCOV that could lead us to different conclusions. However, in this case those definitions don't make a difference, as it is clear that they are notable - excellent work. Keep. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Blue Square Thing After going through the sources, they seem to be at best trivial mentions. I couldn't identify anything of significance but maybe I'm overlooking something. What would you say were the two or three best significant sources of them? Alvaldi (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand exactly what you mean in terms of the sources. A number of them are very brief mentions - some of them just a name or a sentence, although there are others where we're dealing with a paragraph or so of stuff directly addressing Priest. A number of the sources used to provide quotations in the cricket section tend to fall into this category, for example, this from 1940, this from 1931, or this from 1929. To an extent the weight of sourcing comes when these are brought together. He's being referred to as "well known", for example, by a newspaper based over 350 km away from where he's playing in 1931, before he's played rep cricket for Otago. It's a passing mention, but to call him that from that distance is significant. I need to emphasise that I've not been able to check all of the >1000 hits I got on Papers Past - with a reasonably fine tuned search. There may be more detailed articles in there that I missed.
The sources I've used to detail his medical career are probably the most obviously in depth as it happens - this from 1952 and this from 1950 directly address him in dedicated articles. And I happened across two references to him in a history of TB in NZ within the last hour, one indicating that he has an obituary published in the NZJM. I've requested it.
As I say, I understand that no one's written a book or a chapter on the chap - well, not one that we've found anyway. But, tbh with you, I reckon we could delete about 75% of the project if we aimed for that level of sourcing. That might, of course, be appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. If significant sources are found, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per BST. It should be noted to the nominator that while you're not expected to trawl through archives (perhaps it would be more thorough to do so), you should consult the parent project where you think there might be more sources for an article. StickyWicket (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The article is now well-sourced, so I'll save everyone's time and close as keep. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wow! This article has been improved substantially since the nomination. I am not sure as to whether a WP:BEFORE was actually done. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per substantial expansion work by BST. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article now includes analysis of the subject's playstyle and local legacy 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been significantly improved since the AfD was started and is significant coverage has been shown. Should be noted that AfD is not clean up, and that perhaps a notability tag should have been added to the article and a message dropped at the cricket WikiProject to try and find sources to improve the article instead. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great work by BST has shown that this person meets WP:GNG.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per nom (don't get to say that often!). Great job Blue Square Thing! Jacona (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: expansion demonstrates notability and significant coverage. Paora (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Priest&oldid=1090273410"