From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Star Mississippi 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Zaine Kennedy (  | 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:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [1] [2] [3] Tau Corvi ( talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have set up a discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Speedway_related_sources. LibStar ( talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the " Notable riders," most of them use " speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)
Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per suggestions by C679. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete – Minimal significant coverage, no real claim of notability. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 08:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get an actual assessment of sources brought up in this discussion rather than general statements about the article lacking sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2 of the 3 sources brought up are not independent as discussed in reliable sources. The article subject still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 01:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Found some independent sources about this rider which deal with an under-21 world championship [4], Australian national youth championships [5] and even club championship in Australia [6]. There are more but I didn't go into much detail with the search. C 679 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Glasgow times article seems run of the mill, speedway riders crash all the time. I wouldn't regard fullnoise.com.au [7] as an independent source. LibStar ( talk) 04:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's your opinion, I am just stating that there is independent coverage of this person out there, which you cited as the main issue with the page at the outset. C 679 05:29, 30 July 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.