Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finlay Callaghan

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay Callaghan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Scottish rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never kicked on, sourcing exists but not enough to pass WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I feel I have to comment on Rugbyfan22's habit of creating stub articles for seemingly every aspiring player in the sport who makes any kind of appearance in a senior competition, with the majority not establishing themselves over the next few years, at which point they are AfD'ed and deleted with Rugbyfan22's endorsement. Does this not contravene the accepted principle and practice of, you know, notability being demonstrated before the creation of the article? I AGF and appreciate that it still takes a bit of effort to put these together (and that rugby is not the most actively edited area on the site so generally all contributions are useful), but TBH I'm getting vibes of WP:OWN here, with Rugbyfan22 happy for 80% of the bios they create to be deleted as long as the surviving 20% that get improved from their initial sparse condition were their creation, as opposed to being created later and in a better condition when the player is more clearly notable, but by a different editor. Far from a heinous offence but maybe something an admin might want to look at and advise upon IMO.Crowsus (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were created before the WP:NSPORTS guidelines were updated. Every one of these stubs passed the now depreciated WP:NRU guidelines. I could easily just say keep for all of these, as they passed guidelines at the time, but I'd rather adhere to the current view and offer workable solutions, such as redirects where applicable, but for the majority we don't have somewhere we can redirect to. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I'll happily strike the above. If you'd rather simply delete it, please go ahead, or let me know and I'll do it if that seems more appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, WP:NSPORTS2022 was settled in March 2022. Seems like this user has created over 200 pages since that time, with only a handful going above stub-class. JTtheOG (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which would likely pass WP:GNG in my opinion. There will likely be a few which are borderline, created under the likelihood of coverage increasing, but as you can see on red links for United Rugby Championship players (which I used to create on first appearance) the NSPORTS guidelines have been taken into account. There are no issues with creating stub articles either I don't believe. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JTtheOG, that's a fair point if you have looked into it more thoroughly. Personally I am happy to drop the matter for now, as most if not all of the AfDs I have seen from Rugbyfan22 do seem to have been created in the 'old days', but I don't rule out asking for someone to take a look in the future if there end up being further batches of speculative 'might meet GNG in the future' stubs coming here which were created after the changes were implemented. Crowsus (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2024 (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.