Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Beasley


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 02:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

William Beasley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Reason was "Does not appear notable; only given claim to notability is an amateur competition."  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Found a reference here, so may be more to be fleshed out.  it must also be noted that "amateur" in the late 1800s does not carry the same connotations as today.  I'd like to ping wikiproject horse racing and have the UK/Irish members there comment before a final decision is reached.   Montanabw (talk)  03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, even in the 20th century, taking part in a sporting event as an amateur - playing for the love of the game - was considered to be more honourable than being paid to do it. For example, for many years it was the unwritten rule in cricket that the players of a team could be either amateur (W. G. Grace, one of the greatest cricketers ever, was always an amateur) or professional as they chose - but the captain of the team was traditionally an amateur. Indeed, some national sides like England (until 1952), or county sides like Yorkshire (until 1959), would refuse the captaincy to certain eminently suitable players simply because they would not give up professionalism. Cricket retained the distinction between amateurs and professionals right down to 1962. Another example: as recently as 1995, the sport of Rugby Union Football removed their erstwhile "Declaration of Amateurism" from the rule book, which read, in full, "The game is an amateur game. No one is allowed to seek or to receive payment or other material reward for taking part in the game." It had been the second rule in the book - coming only after "Object of the Game". -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per my earlier argument above.  Montanabw (talk)  17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Per Redrose
 * You can't vote twice...  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been relisted, everyone tries again, including you.  Montanabw (talk)  21:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true: the closing admin considers the whole thread from the top, and so the original !votes stand following a relisting, therefore, nobody should !vote a second time. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if that's how it's handled, seems like other times it was just more of the same. BTW, aren't you going to vote, Redrose?  You commented the last time...  Montanabw (talk)  23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. One line about a 1800s amateur jockey... there is a weak chance he was marginally notable, but zero evidence of it. IMHO not enough notability (and not even enough stuff to say about him) to justify a page on the mainspace. Cavarrone 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the Champion Irish Amateur William Beasley would have been among one of the most prominent jockeys of his generation. He competed against professionals when it was much more common to have amateur jockeys riding in major races. WP:ANYBIO states that any individual which wins a   "well-known and significant award or honour "is presumed to be notable and being Irish Champion Amateur two years in succession certainly satisfy  that criteria. Finnegas (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt Champion Irish Amateur Jockey is/never was a well-known or significant award. Google Books has a single result (a trivial mention in Modern Irish lives), and Google provides just 19 results, none of them appearing minimally significant. Cavarrone 14:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being Champion Amateur Jockey in Ireland may not garner much internet coverage but it is one of the few noteworthy awards within the sport. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notability looks likely but may be very difficult to prove without a comprehensive library of late 19th century newspapers. Lists of Grand National results seem to show him riding the second-placed horse in 1888. When he died in a riding accident in Ireland in 1892 a New Zealand paper mentioned it. And while this substantial obituary in an Australian newspaper is of one of his brothers, it specifically refers back to the newspaper's obituary of him. PWilkinson (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and as was pointed out above, the "substantial coverage" of the late 1800s is not the same as today's Twitterverse. He'd qualify as notable today based on his wins alone.  Montanabw (talk)  20:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable jockey, No evidence of notability. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment For pete's sake, a second relisting to draw random deletionists? if there is no consensus, then just keep. , how about adding material to the article (that you created) so it demonstrates notability??   Montanabw (talk)  01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everyone's a fucking deletionist and that includes me too!, Instead of throwing a pathetic tantrum why don't you userfy it or Improve it yourself?.... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to snark, but cool it with the "pathetic:" insult. Talk to me after the 2014 Belmont Stakes, I'm sort of booked with my wiki-time at the moment. I also have a few other projects.  The point is that people who AfD stuff that could be improved are not helping the project by starting these wastes of bandwidth.   Montanabw (talk)  04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's not much on the internets, to be sure, but given the strength of the sourced claim, I think that giving this a nod and a wink is fine. One would have to be a specialist in the history of Irish racing with access to old newspapers to source this out. I don't doubt for a second that such sources are out there. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have added some more information there. Found evidence of him riding at least on one occassion in the Grand National, arguably the best known National Hunt race in the world. Meanwhile the search continues. Finnegas (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - thousands of jockeys have taken part in races and failed to win.--PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete inadequate verification of notability. The "keepers" are guessing see Carrite and  Montanabw  above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: AFG Bejnar, you are also guessing that there is no evidence.   Montanabw (talk)  00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I said that there is inadequate verification. I might guess that no further evidence will be found, but that is not what I said. --Bejnar (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Passing mention in his brother's obituary does not prove notability--nor does anything else in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I feel that sources almost certainly would exist for a jockey who rode in the Grand National. The fact that horseracing sources from the 19th century aren't easily located on a Google search doesn't surprise or overly concern me.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Precisely. No reason to delete this article based on a 21st century bias toward electronic sources. That said, I did find this.  Does that  help?  Montanabw (talk)  03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. For a modern subject, I would be inclined to say there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, but for historical figure, sources are scarcer and harder to find, so the single item in The Sydney Mail, especially considering it's an Australian newspaper writing about an Irish rider, strikes me as sufficient.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (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.