Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Edward Foulkes: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:55, 23 December 2020 editTvx1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,697 edits →Edward Foulkes: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 17:45, 23 December 2020 edit undoTvx1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,697 edits correctionNext edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
*'''Keep''' as passes ]. Needs a few more references but the subject is without a doubt notable. ''']''' (]). 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC) *'''Keep''' as passes ]. Needs a few more references but the subject is without a doubt notable. ''']''' (]). 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', supplement, and not raise the issue of deletion until the end of the World Championship where he is playing now. /]. 18:47, 20 December 2020 (MSK) *'''Keep''', supplement, and not raise the issue of deletion until the end of the World Championship where he is playing now. /]. 18:47, 20 December 2020 (MSK)
*'''Delete''' Thought long and hard about this, but ultimately fails the notability guidelines and that concerns both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The keep supporters all make the logical fallacy that a sportsperson automatically is notable upon reaching a certain sportive achievement. That's not true. The achievement alone does not do that. It only creates a '''rebuttable presumption'''. As it happens here this darts player only qualified for the tournament through a specific qualifier designed to allow one young player from his region of the world in the draw. He did win his first match, but his opponent was a rather insignificant player himself (ranked around #100 in the world). Foulkes subsequently lost comprehensively against the first significant player he faced. WP:SPORTCRIT clearly states that notability is dependent of the subject having been subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That is what we call ]. Said coverage does not exist here and the keep supporters have not made any attempt to prove it does. The only existing coverage of this person fall under ].]]]1 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Thought long and hard about this, but ultimately fails the notability guidelines and that concerns both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The keep supporters all make the logical fallacy that a sportsperson automatically is notable upon reaching a certain sportive achievement. That's not true. The achievement alone does not do that. It only creates a '''rebuttable presumption'''. As it happens here this darts player only qualified for the tournament through a specific qualifier designed to allow one young player from his country in the draw. He did win his first match, but his opponent was a rather insignificant player himself (ranked around #100 in the world). Foulkes subsequently lost comprehensively against the first significant player he faced. WP:SPORTCRIT clearly states that notability is dependent of the subject having been subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That is what we call ]. Said coverage does not exist here and the keep supporters have not made any attempt to prove it does. The only existing coverage of this person fall under ].]]]1 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:45, 23 December 2020

Edward Foulkes

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Foulkes fails WP:GNG due to an lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems notable although more sources are definitely needed for the article to be kept.--NicolaArangino (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)-
  • Keep And you ohueli tam? Shodji - Japan top-players!
  • Keep He's not only appeared, but won a game at the PDC World Championship and has reached at least the last 64; this makes him not non-notable, and far more notable than a number of darts players/sportspeople that have Misplaced Pages pages. It's only because it's darts that there's not more 'significant coverage' of him, and if the bar wants to be set so high then a lot of articles on sportspeople would have to go. Lewcario (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Playing in a darts world championship makes nobody notable. Playing in five didn't save Peter Johnstone from deletion as he failed GNG. Foulkes has nothing other than "man wins darts match" articles online and therefore fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment As you have mentioned in a previous discussion, WP:SPORTCRIT states that notability can be assumed if 'they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level', which I would argue the PDC World Championships falls under, given its professional status, significant prize money, global nature of participants, and sizeable viewing audience in several countries. If you would still fall back on WP:GNG as an argument for deletion regardless of passing WP:SPORTCRIT, I would hasten you to look at a few of your created articles and tell me whether they pass WP:GNG, or whether they fail WP:GNG and you would have to fall back on other categories to argue against their deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewcario (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Presumed rather than assumed actually. Important difference. Still, as WP:SPORTSCRIT opens with, significant coverage is still required (and does not appear to exist here). A result is in itself not sufficient. Also notability is not inherited. Just because a sport or a particular event of it is very notable, that does not make every person involved in it automatically notable.Tvx1 13:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It might be relatively a notable topic, and it is better "to be kept" instead of "to be deleted"; meanwhile, it is also better to add more corresponding reference(s). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as passes WP:SPORTCRIT. Needs a few more references but the subject is without a doubt notable. ser! (let's discuss it). 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, supplement, and not raise the issue of deletion until the end of the World Championship where he is playing now. /Narambug. 18:47, 20 December 2020 (MSK)
  • Delete Thought long and hard about this, but ultimately fails the notability guidelines and that concerns both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The keep supporters all make the logical fallacy that a sportsperson automatically is notable upon reaching a certain sportive achievement. That's not true. The achievement alone does not do that. It only creates a rebuttable presumption. As it happens here this darts player only qualified for the tournament through a specific qualifier designed to allow one young player from his country in the draw. He did win his first match, but his opponent was a rather insignificant player himself (ranked around #100 in the world). Foulkes subsequently lost comprehensively against the first significant player he faced. WP:SPORTCRIT clearly states that notability is dependent of the subject having been subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That is what we call significant coverage. Said coverage does not exist here and the keep supporters have not made any attempt to prove it does. The only existing coverage of this person fall under WP:ROUTINE.Tvx1 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Categories: