Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lautaro Bavaro

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 no consensus‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lautaro Bavaro

[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)

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. The creators statement that he has played for Argentina is inaccurate, as he has only played for Argentina's 2nd team, and basic details do not denote significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Argentina, and Washington, D.C.. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he played for Argentina, that was another user. Although, playing for 2 different teams that compete in the URBA top 12 is another reason to keep notability. I'd say out of any person in those clubs, Bavaro SHOULD be kept, as he was the team captain that led them through the Americas Rugby Championship.

Please explain what you get out of repeatedly nominating 10+ of my articles for deletion at the same time? Don't you have a hobby?

EytanMelech (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this shows how he passes WP:GNG. He's obviously played for some clubs at a reasonable level below what is now the no longer used notability guide for rugby, WP:NRU. However, there is nothing in the sourcing in the article, or what I can find in a WP:BEFORE that shows enough for significant coverage to be met. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing guidelines no longer used doesn't seem to very valuable argument. They're no longer used for a reason.

Out of the 9 articles of mine you've NfD in the last 30 minutes, Bavaro has one of the strongest team repetoires out of all of them. Please cite to me which guidelines he fails to meet? You keep linking the general concept of "NRU" with no real backing for your claims.

Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.

There are definitely sources listed for Bavaro that do not fall under the "trivial coverage" database description. There are legit sources there.

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

Once again, governing body and team sites pages are used, but they are not the only ones.

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.

I think ARN and A Pleno count towards this, c'est non?

EytanMelech (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1: Database source, not GNG

Source 2: Brief press conference with some quotes, doesn't constitute significant coverage

Source 3: 4 lines of the same press conference

Source 4: Database source

Source 5: Signing announcement, doesn't constitute significant coverage

Source 6: Just states he is captain, no significant coverage here

Source 7: Same as source 2, press conference after squad naming

Source 8: Brief interview with Argentina rugby, not independent of the subject and no SIGCOV

Source 9: Match report with a couple of mentions of him, not SIGCOV

Source 10: Signing announcement, not SIGCOV

My WP:BEFORE brings up nothing of note either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring any relation to WP:Significant coverage not required, let's take a look at what SIGCOV actually says:

SIGCOV 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.

For example, let's take the most detailed articles, the signing statements. (Ref 5)

1. Addresses the topic directly and in detail

Article is literally about them, I think this meets the mark.

2. No original research is needed

Definitely still fits the bill

3. More than a trivial mention.

Whether or not you like the source, it def isn't a "trivial mention" of the guy.

4. Does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Bavaro shares the spotlight with OGDC here, but I don't think that should be an issue given this criteria.

Feel free to explain further.

EytanMelech (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Significant coverage not required is just an essay and not policy or a guideline. Please not the following in bold at the bottom "In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources." None of the sources provided show this in my opinion. Signing statements do not constitute SIGCOV as they are routine coverage of the subject. We don't count signing announcements as they are just a description of what has occurred. While they are better than primary sources, they still don't indicate notability. See Q7 on WP:NSPORTS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going to WP:What is and is not routine coverage:

However, if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage. Not every sporting event earns a feature article in the press, and not every professional hopeful gains significant coverage and feature articles.

In other words:

"routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability.

"routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

Routine coverage is characterized to be more "here is the score from the local game at Ramsett Park" with a list of players names. Not so much a couple of articles that say "Here's a national champsionship winner and multi-year national finalist in 2 different countries being signed by the international Major League Rugby" Simple signing statements saying "Little Timmy went from Orange County to Los Angeles" may be considered RC, but something that not only constitutes a successful player, but also describes his history with the game and other details (education, build) are more than RC.

EytanMelech (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is just an essay. There is no policy of guideline here. While WP:ROUTINE coverage alone does not disqualify the article. However the sourcing, especially the signing announcements do not go into enough detail in the whole to be considered as anything other than routine, and if they do they tend to not be independent of the source or reliable as very little in terms of secondary sourcing exists. Signing announcements are basically just Primary sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having reviewed the sources and guidelines cited above, I find EytanMelech's analysis convincing. I am not particularly impressed with the attempted wikilawyering by the nom. Deletion is an extraordinary, substantially irreversible and frequently harmful measure, and if your arguments in favor of it require elaborate legalistic backflips it's a pretty good sign that such an extraordinary measure is not warranted in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominators assessment of the sources. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. PER GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject., something that the subject has not received. Alvaldi (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's desire to delete the article. Not only are there currently no written standards surrounding professional rugby players within (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)), but there are many articles on the site that lack in great detail or explanation surrounding professional athletes, yet they are still kept up. Would you delete a page like this then, with just seven sources but a notable individual? No, it wouldn't make much sense.

Given the lack of standards written, it wouldn't be appropriate to resort to the general guidelines of a subject when ones for a sport that would do a much better job at filtering articles aren't yet in existence. Or as I see it, it's not in good faith.

Lastly, let's consider the argument that this article lacks significant coverage.

Addresses the topic directly and in detail The sources do discuss Bavaro in detail, maybe not to excruciating detail but the detail is there.
No original research is needed to extract the content I don't see any reason why there is a need for original research, it's not like the article is making links to fan discussions on Reddit or anything like that.
Must be more than a trivial mention There are multiple sources that state more surrounding Bavaro than "fun fact: did you know x thing about him?", so that's enough, and the information is relevant to Bavaro as well.
Does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Like #3, there are multiple sources where Bavaro isn't the main topic of the source material. Overall, it would be a gross misinterpretation of notability guidelines to claim that just because a topic lacks the coverage you'd expect out of somebody as notable as Abraham Lincoln that deletion would then be warranted. I think it's pretty clear the article should be kept up, albeit improved with more writing and hopefully more sources. If not, though, it should still stay up, because it fits the requirements and the whole argument for its deletion is nitpicky at best, which doesn't meet up with Wikipedia's standards.

ShticktatorTal (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ShticktatorTal Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes, including rugby players, must pass WP:GNG. That means the subject must be shown to have received multiple reliable sources of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. And GNG isn't some impossible barrier to break. Usually, two to three significant sources are enough for an article to be kept in AfD's. I do recommend reading the FAQ at the top of NSPORT, it gives a good insight into what NSPORT is about. Alvaldi (talk) 08:51, 29 June 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.