Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruben McWilliams: Difference between revisions

Ruben McWilliams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Note that this article is cited only to a single database source and is therefore not compliant with WP:SPORTCRIT which demands that every sports-bio page contain one non-database source physically in the article. Per the RFC, any sportsbio page cited to only database sources should be deleted even if sources are found. Therefore, editors should not vote to keep this article until a non-database source with significant coverage is physically present on the page per the RFC outcome. (see the last bullet point at SPORTCRIT) This means editing is required to keep this article.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did a BEFORE. I checked in Behind the Silver Fern which is a history of the All Blacks and he was listed in two places but had zero in-depth coverage in it. There was only one book in google books mentioning the subject, and that was only a photograph mentioning he was in the background (see [1]). Likewise I only found two books in the internet archive mentioning him; both passing mentions in this book and this book) I seriously doubt there is book coverage of McWilliams of any significance. I found him mentioned in passing in newspaper archives too but not anything that struck me as indepth/significant enough to meet GNG standard. Perhaps you are more skilled at locating materials and this conversation would therefore benefit by your participation in finding sources with independent significant coverage. As for asserting WP:SOURCESEXIST, that’s a circular reasoning argument that isn’t valid and listed in the arguments to avoid at AFD. If there are extant sources present them here so we can see them. Additionally, per the RFC, even if WP:NEXIST is satisfied, any sportsbio page only cited to a database should be deleted. In this case locating materials doesn’t get past the mandatory source presence issue demanded by SPORTCRIT in the last bullet point of that guideline. One non-database source with significant coverage must be on the page per the RFC outcome banning all sportsbios from being built only from databases. Until that source is added through editing, all keep arguments are invalid no matter how many sources are found.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s also this entry that I found on Google Books, which is substantive coverage of his test career. (I’ll add as ref in the article when I’m not on mobile later). Nil🥝 04:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Radio NZ article mentioning Ruben, stating he was the first All Black to ever play 10 consecutive tests.[2] Nil🥝 05:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? NEXIST hasn’t been demonstrated.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Extensive coverage of his career at the NZ National Library newspaper archive (you get better results using his initials). Example of Sigcov here. Credit to Schwede66 for article expansion. Jevansen (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Thanks to Schwede for the extensive sourcing added to the article, which combined with other sources here establishes notability. Nil🥝 12:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Withdaw per WP:HEY. I know there is a redirect vote so this can’t be speedy closed; just making it clear I am the nominator and now support keeping. Article has been substantially improved.4meter4 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all the sourcing is primary where as WP:GNG requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure about that. A routine newspaper account discussing McWilliams’ performance in a match would be primary, but there are also items giving background information about the subject, which are details that have been taken from other sources, making them secondary. Jevansen (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources in the article are primary bar the database profile. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]