Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Begley
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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Begley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable individual, no reliable secondary sources about the individual, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception to WP:N. 2008Olympianchitchat 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Definately meets WP:ATHLETE, no sources is not a valid reason to delete an article, should be tagged as unreferenced. It appears the nominator has nominated a collection of Irish related articles with little knowledge of the sports in general. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask that this nom be withdrawn and the article be tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} as appropriate instead. I can find no reason in WP:DEL for this page to be nominated. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you can ask, but without the nom doing it, I don't think there's sufficient grounds to "forcibly" do it! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the {{blpunsourced}} tag, which gets ingored a lot since this is a BLP. MuZemike 23:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jenuk, but because of BLP requirements, it needs to be rewritten with some sources very soon. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs more references, but the subject is notable. FlyingToaster 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per WP:GAA guidelines ,WP:ATH and the above Gnevin (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies WP:ATH. This article needs to be {{blpunsourced}} tagged, but not deleted. See: [1], [2], [3], [4]; and there are other news articles. Rosiestep (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable under WP:ATH ManfromDelmonte (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This articles is wholly unreferenced, so its claims to notability is not supported by any reference, and wikipedia has no business publishing wholly unreferenced biographies of living people (see WP:BLP). No prejudice to recreating these articles at a future date if they are referenced to establish notability. As Jimmy Wales wrote, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."" It's time to stop pussyfooting around this one and simply delete BLP articles which mock wikipedia's core policies by failing to even provide a reference for the subject's existence, let alone evidence to support the assertion of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I can find nothing in WP:BLP#Deletion to back up your delete argument other than deletion should be used as a last resort. It certainly hasn't got to last resort stage yet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BHG I had to say I'm very disappointed in your delete vote, this is not a matter of WP:N but a matter of time as simple search found 2 references in 5 minutes . I don't think it's fair for wiki to bully people into editing articles when they are busy else where just because other people would rather use TW to AFD the article in seconds and type delete rather than put in the effort Gnevin (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, which says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I don't think it's unfair to ask that those who want such unreferenced material to be retained should justify its inclusion by adding references, and I'm disappointed that the burden of proof is being inverted. I'm not the one who AFDed this article, but I cannot defend keeping unreferenced material, and I did try to help by drawing the attention of the Gaelic Games project to the extent of this problem nearly a year ago in the hope that those with expertise in the area could work on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The unreferenced tag has only been added today, it cannot be expected for editors to jump when you tell them to. Adding references is likely to take time. There is no inversion of burden of proof, but its reasonable to allow a period of time from adding an unreferenced tag to deleting material. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. This AFD is open for 7 days, which is quite adequate for an editor to find just one reference in a WP:RS which verifies the central claim to notability. I am not suggesting that article needs to be expanded or fully referenced in that time, just that we need one reference to establish the existence of the subject and the claim to notability. If such a reference has been added by the time the AFD is closed, then obviously my !vote to delete will be invalid (and if I spot the change, I'll happily strike out my !vote once the ref is added). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs found Reference found Gnevin (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Great, I'll !vote to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs found Reference found Gnevin (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. This AFD is open for 7 days, which is quite adequate for an editor to find just one reference in a WP:RS which verifies the central claim to notability. I am not suggesting that article needs to be expanded or fully referenced in that time, just that we need one reference to establish the existence of the subject and the claim to notability. If such a reference has been added by the time the AFD is closed, then obviously my !vote to delete will be invalid (and if I spot the change, I'll happily strike out my !vote once the ref is added). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The unreferenced tag has only been added today, it cannot be expected for editors to jump when you tell them to. Adding references is likely to take time. There is no inversion of burden of proof, but its reasonable to allow a period of time from adding an unreferenced tag to deleting material. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, which says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I don't think it's unfair to ask that those who want such unreferenced material to be retained should justify its inclusion by adding references, and I'm disappointed that the burden of proof is being inverted. I'm not the one who AFDed this article, but I cannot defend keeping unreferenced material, and I did try to help by drawing the attention of the Gaelic Games project to the extent of this problem nearly a year ago in the hope that those with expertise in the area could work on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BHG I had to say I'm very disappointed in your delete vote, this is not a matter of WP:N but a matter of time as simple search found 2 references in 5 minutes . I don't think it's fair for wiki to bully people into editing articles when they are busy else where just because other people would rather use TW to AFD the article in seconds and type delete rather than put in the effort Gnevin (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find nothing in WP:BLP#Deletion to back up your delete argument other than deletion should be used as a last resort. It certainly hasn't got to last resort stage yet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (changing my !vote). Now that it's referenced, the article verifiably meets WP:ATHLETE's conferment of notability on an athlete who plays at this highest level of a sport, because inter-county matches are the highest level of GAA competition. More refs would be good, but that's an improvement issue not a deletion issue.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is a notable athlete who has played at the highest level of his sport. He is most certainly notable at a national level. Derry Boi (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (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.