Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Parris


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

John Parris

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage of Parris at independent reliable sources. None of the links (apart from the one to the Parriss Cues website) work, and this appears to be just advertising for Parris Cues. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Informed WP:CUE about this discussion. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  —— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately there is no substantial coverage in reliable sources. I can only find passing mentions about him, making cues for professional snooker players. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I came here looking to keep, but the sources are lacking beyond "renowned cuemaker" and "x snooker player uses a John Parris cue". He's well known as a cuemaker and has some claims under point 2 of ANYBIO but clearly fails the GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think that we need to worry about this being advertising, because anyone who plays snooker seriously enough to get a hand-made cue will be well aware, without having to read a Wikipedia article, that Parris is "the world's leading cue maker" (The Daily Telegraph) or, if you prefer, "the game's leading cuesmith" (Irish Independent). Like Christopher Connor above I'm rather bemused by the lack of coverage findable online. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep since Phil Bridger immediately above just fulfilled the GNG with multiple, independent reliable sources, with apparently trivial effort. This case is, incidentally, a great example of a) how it can be a poor idea to nominate topics for deletion if you are not intimately familiar with the field to which they pertain, and b) why the Internet and search results more specifically are not always a good indicator of notability.  Parris is covered, non-trivially (in detail, in fact, including construction methods, price ranges, etc.), with a full-colour illustration and a pull-quote, in Stein & Rubino's Billiard Encyclopedia, the most important reference work on cue sports. Copy-pasteable full citation:  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because although the sources may be poor, they are certainly sufficient to give the article credibility. As has been mentioned anyone involved in snooker will most likely have heard his name as one of the leading cue makers. Samasnookerfan (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2010 (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.