Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alwyn Simpson

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. Consensus has tended towards the agreement that Simpson meets the notability guidelines for rugby league, and possibly also the general guidelines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn Simpson

Alwyn Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY (sorry, meant WP:RLN), entirely reliant on a single source, searches turn up next to nothing. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the newly(?) developed consensus that 1 game doesn't cut it when other coverage is absent. Geschichte (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Limited appearances at the top level and no significant coverage. I’m not that knowledgeable about rugby league but I’d consider rolling in the following articles of similarly inadequately covered former players who haven’t received coverage beyond databases or mentions in articles about a single game:

• Steve Lacaze
• Elia Tuqiri
• Jason Hanrahan Ytoyoda (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Funnily, they were all created by Mulman82. I think new page patrollers could use more power in requesting speedy deletion per WP:SNOW, especially for BIO articles with such little details as all of these in question. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one game with no identified coverage does not cut it at all. The fact that we have acted like it did is just ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:NFOOTY is the wrong criteria for rugby players and shows a lack of WP:BEFORE from the nominator. However, the votes from Geschichte and Ytoyoda are well reasoned (though I'm not going to express an opinion on whether I agree with them without doing my own research) so I would be opposed to a procedural close due to that alone. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smartyllama: The short version of the notability criteria for Rugby league players are at WP:RL/N, with more detail on players with limited appearances at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the longstanding consensus that one game is enough to cut it. [1] duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I want to note the language at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability, which reads: Any current or former rugby league player who has played none or limited first grade rugby league should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. However, normally these players only have information listed on their club's official website, which is a violation of Independent of the subject in the general notability guideline. There are a couple of "where are they now?" article and mentioned of his debut, but I don't think there's enough for WP:GNG. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no such "longstanding consensus". Most subject-specific guidelines are related to presumption of notability, not a guarantee thereof. In the end WP:GNG and WP:BIO take precedence. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:RLN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:E00:2111:30AF:761B:4F3:2E2D (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - the IP above has not made many edits outside this topic Spiderone 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG by a long way Spiderone 07:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:RLN. And if you google Alwyn Simpson NRL, I suspect he meets GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG, and there are too few matches for the Broncos to qualify for WP:RLN. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The person only played in a single game and the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. So, this seems like a clear delete case to me. Personally, I'm glad things are moving away from articles about athletes like this one being notable. There's zero reason they have a special pass when it comes to the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Expanding on my Keep. Coverage dedicated to Simpson exists. Such as Simpson in dream return to big time in the Courier Mail, 3 July 2009. ([2] pressreader has change their readability). and LOOK WHO WE FOUND! ALWYN SIMPSON by RUSSO, STEVEN in Rugby League Week;9/10/2015, p39 [3]. and "Alwyn who? Bennett calls up park winger" by JAMES PHELPS in Sunday Telegraph, The (Sydney), 09/09/2007. and Rookie earns shock call-up by Steve Ricketts in Courier Mail, The (Brisbane), 08/09/2007. and D'OH! SIMPSON'S DEBUT A DAY TO FORGET by Middleton, David in Rugby League Week, 19/09/2007, p24 (short article). Further coverage will exist in year books and records and the such. Simpson satisfies GNG as well as the RLN.

In addition to that none of those calling for the deletion of this verified content has given a good reason why it should be Deleted when alternatives exist such as redirecting to List of Brisbane Broncos players. That does not require deletion, provides a usefull redirect and preserves valid content for when someone is able to do a dead tree source and expand the content. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable that List of Brisbane Broncos players should even exist in the first place. Let alone be dumbing ground for every random athlete that has played for them no matter how minor. Really there should just be a short list of the top, notable players in Brisbane Broncos. Unfortunately, that articles a mess though. Although, it does have a list of players anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources might seem impressive, except 3 of them are about the one match he played in September 2007, another is about a comeback that didn't quite happen, and the third is a "Where are they now?" article, where the subtext is that he's not really that well covered (people who receive consistent coverage generally don't get the "Where are they now?" treatment). That doesn't seem enough coverage to create a useful, more-than-just-a-stub article. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:, that's just a IDON'TLIKEIT argument. The article exists and is a valid page to redirect this one to. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Not really. It's work/tedious to redirect an article to another one that is unreferenced/will likely just be deleted. Especially if the thing your redirected isn't discussed to any length or referenced in the redirect target. Also, "Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read" and I just don't think someone going to List of Brisbane Broncos players is going there for specific information on a player. That's not the point in lists anyway. The main point in them is as a broad over view and navigational aid. BTW, generally citing IDON'TLIKEIT is a pretty weak argument. It's also needlessly personalizing this when it shouldn't be a personal. Especially in this case. I'll use it when someone specifically says they want to the article to be kept because they like it or something along those lines, but that's about it and it's not how I approached it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Edits since nomination demonstrate Simpson meets GNG, as well as the subject specific notability guideline. Jevansen (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect - I'm satisfied that there are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG; if the consensus by the closing moderator does not support keeping, then a valid redirect page exists at List of Brisbane Broncos players and no argument has been cited to suggest that would be inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He debuted in a final and while he'll be a permastub, I think there's been just enough written on him to have a valid article based on sources like [4] [5] along with the references in the article, along with other mentions like [6], a match report that doesn't count towards notability but can be used to flesh out the article. (This is an image of him playing in his match.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 25 October 2020 (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.