Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Hanrahan

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 redirect to List of Brisbane Broncos players. There are insufficient rationales here for the keeping of this article as stand-alone; however, a number of editors pointed out that a redirect would not be an issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hanrahan

[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)

Fails ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ actually WP:RLN, only source is a brief mention, searches turn up nothing. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NFooty is for football players, not rugby players. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Project-specific guidelines notwithstanding, regardless of sport 1 game is not enough to cut it, unless there is a lot of coverage on it. Such coverage is probably not present here. As such the page fails the rule that Wikipedia is not a collection of all conceiveable information. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or, if somehow deleted, delete without prejudice of recreation) - he played in the pre-Internet era and won the reserves premiership, Brisbane's first ever honour (albeit a minor one.) The article is brand new and he clearly passes WP:RLN, so not sure why that's in the nomination. We just need a better showing of WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the longstanding consensus that one game is enough to cut it. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually untrue, the consensus has changed. Several players with 1 game have been deleted. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one game "consensus" is absurd and should be ditched. There is no other profession where a minor performance one time creates default notability. Even one top billed role in a film is not going to make an actor or actress notable, this one game rule for sports is utterly absurd and should be scrapped. It has lead to a huge proliferation of useless stubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with JPL here. This completely fails WP:GNG and that should take precedence through scraping by on RLN Spiderone 13:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such thing as longstanding consensus that one game is enough. WP:RLN talks about presumption of notability, which is easily rebutted by searching the web for coverage on the subject. There is very little coverage, and most are WP:ROUTINE announcement of his joining the Broncos. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has meet the requirements of WP: GNG

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Has played one professional game which is more then all the keyboard warriors here so he is entitled to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:E00:2111:30AF:761B:4F3:2E2D (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — 2001:8004:E00:2111:30AF:761B:4F3:2E2D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Note that there's a contradiction between the WP:RL/N and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability. The former says one appearance confers notability but the latter says "limited" appearances are not enough. I find the latter interpretation to be more reasonable, because there generally isn't enough coverage to create adequate articles for players with single-digit appearances. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ytoyoda, WP:RL/N is policy, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability is an essay. Surely if a policy and an essay contradict each other, the policy should be followed. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a rugby league deletion topic watchlist this could be put on? I can't find it easily. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer. I did it for you, see below. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Walwal20:, I think you added this to the union-related deletions rather than league (and not sure if such a list exists)? Deus et lex (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex I found it weird myself, but it appears that Rugby Union is the name of the sport itself. I couldn't find any other list related to rugby. In case you'd like to search too, you can look either at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Compact or Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting (this latter one includes discontinued lists). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 09:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: - thanks, there doesn't seem to actually be a Rugby League list. Not sure how that can be nominated? Deus et lex (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post here but I'm not sure if there is a better place for it Spiderone 12:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:RLN Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi guys, have removed the player from the rugby union related deletion discussions as he has never played rugby union. If there is a rugby league deletion discussion page he should be added to that one instead. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:RLN, whether that guideline is too loose or not is not a matter for this discussion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those calling for the deletion of this verified content has given a good reason why it should be Deleted when alternatives exist such as redirecting to List of Brisbane Broncos players. That does not require deletion, provides a usefull redirect and preserves valid content for when someone is able to do a dead tree source and expand the content. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Excuse me for another comment, but wanted to add that Hanrahan was the winner of the BRL Rothmans Medal in 1992. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to List of Brisbane Broncos players per duffbeerforme. Users are required to consider alternatives to deletion and this is a valid redirect which is better than any deletion, even if the consensus is that a standalone page is not warranted (and preserves the content in case something changes in future). Deus et lex (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:RLN portion of WP:NSPORTS. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with the reasoning put by duffbeerforme and Deus et lex. Cabrils (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2020 (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.