Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankin family of Geelong


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rankin family of Geelong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable as a family in any significant sources; not seeing the value of having a family article when all its members have their own articles, and the family article doesn't contain anything that couldn't be in those. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

· Keep - But happy to prune it back to a few paragraphs. You have a good point in that there is duplication with the six or so Rankins, who have their own pages. Much of the material could be relocated to these seperate article; however, it would still be useful to have a separate page that shows the links between them and very succinctly mentions the family's connection to the Geelong district. MPCR (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - article should be condensed. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think. Seems to me like the family as a whole does have significant coverage in reliable sources, though the article currently reads a bit too much like a family history and not enough like an encyclopedia article. If the family has got significant coverage then I see nothing wrong with summarising the biographies of the notable characters into the 'parent' family article. See for example Category:Sports families, of which Ablett family springs to mind in this particular case. Also Harvey brothers is a great example of this type of article and is excellent quality. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely support an article on the Ablett family, who are actually notable as a whole as well as individually. But these people seem like a random bunch that we happen to have articles on. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at this again, I'd probably say I'm a weak keep. Few of the sources, except a few newspaper articles, appear to be entirely about the family, but where do we draw the line of "significant coverage"? I can certainly see the point of view of The Drover's Wife and Frickeg, but I think that the newspaper articles and the book mentions that stretch several pages (ignoring the self-published family history) together amounts to significant coverage. I also like the work that has been done on the article in the interim, it has a much better tone and clearer scope. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. These people are all notable individually, but I'm not seeing the coverage of them as a family. A substantial portion of the article is essentially duplication of information that belongs on each individual page. Although the sources are difficult to examine as they're mostly offline, from what I can tell there is precisely one source dealing with them as a family, which appears to be an article in an obscure local journal by a member of the Rankin family!! The fact that a family has multiple notable individuals does not lead to notability; there has to be coverage of the family itself. For example, in Jenks24's Ablett family example above, there are at least four sources cited dealing with the family and not just the various individuals. (Harvey brothers I'm less convinced about, but I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough in the area to pursue deleting a GA.) In short, the family as distinct from the individuals does not come close to meeting WP:GNG. Some of the information could be merged back into individual articles. Frickeg (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Article has now been condensed. I think there is strong interest in them as a family group - particularly Edwin, Cliff and Bert - and appreciate the suggestion of including them in the sporting families category. MPCR (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a comment, which has been made, please note that most of the sources are actually available online (i.e. 18 of 27 references). The newspaper reports and sports magazine articles - quite often covering the family rather than individual members - are all available online through the NLA Trove collection of digitalized journals. In any case, hopefully the significant changes made to the article, taking on board everyone’s comments, should mean that the retention of the article in its present form will suit most people. Thanks again for everyone’s comments - this has been a useful experience for me as a new contributor.MPCR (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The main issue raised in arguments for deletion seems to be that while the individuals are all notable and have their own entries, the family is not. The family's notability and the significance of the father-son and sibling-to-sibling football records was certainly not evident in the first draft, but I believe that the condensing of the text and revisions have addressed this issue. The family's significance in the Geelong district is discussed in a separate chapter (pp. 81-94) in Three William McDonalds and is also noted (albeit usually in passing) in a number of newspapers and journals. The significance of the father-son career-gap record (which still stands as the AFL record) and the significance of the records set by Cliff and Bert Rankin as two brothers (i.e. first brothers to be both captain and vice-captain in a team and first brothers to be selected in the same Victorian team) are also noted in many of the newspaper articles and sporting magazines, which have been cited. These aren't individual achievements and, I think, have to be considered through a family lens, just like many of the other articles in the 'sporting families' category. Similarly, the issue of the controversy in 1923 of the dropping of Bert Rankin and his brother refusing to take the field in support of him, is also a family issue, in my view, and certainly features heavily in newspaper reports at the time and even resulted in a league investigation.MPCR (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck !vote - you cannot !vote twice. Frickeg (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:43, 7 November 2015 (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.