Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Treverrow


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Treverrow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - won many honours with Ballymena, and "was given the prestigious honour of being named Ulster Footballer of the Year" in 1952, as per this reliable source which I have added to the text. GiantSnowman 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, thats funny because I have always seen you claim that biogs on players own websites dont consitute a RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a biography, it's a club history. Read the source before editing. GiantSnowman 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its still not a source independent of the person though - which is what you have claimed on other AfD's. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You need to move on from months-old AfDs that didn't go your way. Face it, the club's own official history is a reliable source that proves this guy is notable! GiantSnowman 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. GiantSnowman 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it is a third party source then?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as it's clearly not. I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability, which I am satisfied it does. GiantSnowman 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself in your own post. You say I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, yet, then you say, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability.  Emphasis mine, to show bits which contradict each other.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, notability through sporting success, as opposed to notability through third-party sources. GiantSnowman 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't even know what GiantSnowman is trying to say; you keep contradicting yourself and making absolutely no sense at all. Anyways, delete as I can't find any proof of notability whatsoever. Blogspam and one-time mentions on some obscure website doesn't count for anything. Keep - While there are other problems with the sources, I misunderstood the notability policy for athletes. So keep.  GraYoshi2x► talk 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I contradict myself? And RSSSF isn't "some obscure website", it's one of the most highly-rated football statistics websites available! Wrong AfD, sorry! Too darn tired...  GiantSnowman 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All the stuff you're saying on notability. While it's not notable, it somehow is in sports...? If it's NN, it's NN; it doesn't matter what category the subject is in. This doesn't exactly show that it's a highly-rated or frequently visited site either.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many times a website is visited to show its reliablity, what a ridiculous thing to claim. The fact you have to face is that the website I have provided shows that this guy has acheived enough for his article to be deemed as notable. GiantSnowman 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But you're not saying anything about it being reliable; you're talking about notability. Again, a one-sentence mention does not make for a proper source for any article. Nor does it say anything about his notability. I can have someone write a short mention of me and how I frequently shop this or that supermarket; still doesn't make me notable.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because the act of shopping in a supermarket, which the sentence shows, isn't notable. However, the sentence above shows sporting notability, as does this independent newspaper article, which shows Treverrow was a member of the 1958 Irish Cup winning side. GiantSnowman 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So first off you say that the article isn't notable... and then you claim "sporting notability", which AFAIK there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Yet again, passing mentions of some person contributing to a sports victory does not make that person notable. The group as a whole may be, but not that one single player.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the article wasn't notable? There is sporting notability, located at WP:ATHLETE, I suggest you read it. GiantSnowman 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Unless anyone asserts that he is not actually a professional footballer, he meets WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you can't withdraw yet as there is still an unstruck 'Delete' vote from GraYoshi2x - sorry. GiantSnowman 08:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
 * there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
 * there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
 * there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
 * "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
 * finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.