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 delete. T. Canens ( talk) 13:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Quinn Ngawati

Quinn Ngawati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:RLN as has not played in a Super League or international match. Prod was contested on the grounds that he is a "rugby union international" but if so, this is not sourced or mentioned in the article. Mattlore ( talk) 00:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support Probably WP:TOOSOON 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment *IF* this guy has played Rugby Union at International level, he may be notable enough for an article. I agree that just signing for Toronto Wolfpack is not enough to pass by itself. I think the nominator should consider asking for input from WP:RU to see if there is any claim to notability from their PoV. Bwfcwarrior ( talk) 22:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage independent of the subject (in the local newspaper)
Shortcuts

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, [1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources" [2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. [3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. [4]
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. Getmefoodbb ( talk) 12:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Might be best that the article is sandboxed until he plays, as the Wolfpack have a better squad than some SL squads and other comparable sports and their rationales. Fleets ( talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources present in the article, as written, are not enough to demonstrate that the topic has received the depth or breadth of coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. #1 is a user-generated database that includes all players on any rugby league team that exists at all, and is thus not a source that can assist notability; #2 is a routine piece of human interest coverage in his local hometown newspaper, at a time when he was still only aspiring to play at any level higher than the local high school league; and #3 just namechecks his existence a single time in an article which is not about him. A person does not automatically pass GNG the moment one or two reliable sources make it possible to nominally verify that he exists — the context in which the coverage is being given still has to satisfy the subject-specific notability criterion for his field of endeavour. The sourcing shown here is simply not good enough to hand him a GNG pass, if the only source that's substantively about him is local coverage in a "local teen aspires to be famous someday" context.
    User:Getmefoodbb is also advised that in future, it is not appropriate to cut and paste the entire text of a notability guideline statement into the AFD discussion verbatim — you merely link to that statement. Bearcat ( talk) 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
  2. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  3. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
  4. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
  5. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quinn_Ngawati&oldid=1077956154"