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 Sydney Roosters players. While no clear consensus has emerged for deletion, it is clear that the subjects have only received routine coverage as far as has been shown by Aoziwe. Given that not much new has emerged after relisting and redirecting preserves the pages, I am closing this discussion and noting that if more sources emerge the articles can be recreated and expanded further. Malinaccier (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. Nash (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 GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

J. Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

T O'Conner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

G Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

J. Cunningham (rugby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

F. Strickland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One more for the same reason:

C Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep There are alot of nominations for deletions for articles on rugby league footballers where there first name isn't known, I think they should all be nominated in the same AfD. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Block evasion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with separate discussions? Some might be notable, some might not be. Each should be treated on their own merits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All of these nominations have been viewed. All Fail WP:RL/N and WP:GNG. One liners with one (ureliable) reference do not render notability. Those citing Honour rolls in football clubs do not get notability either. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't fail RL project notability, that's why it exists. There are, or were, dozens of them, perhaps more. Ditto with AFL players. From time to time, someone stumbles on one of them, and gets in a tizz.
• Comment, a possible alternative to deletion for some may be redirect to List of Sydney Roosters players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:

Nash:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

O'Connor:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Mackay:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Cunningham:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Strickland:

As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports, but nothing anywhere near in-depth.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keepWeak keep:

Larkin:

There is more than some others, but mostly all routine.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keepKeep:

Barker:

There is more than some others, and not all completely routine match reports. There are special mentions.^[1][2] BTW, the subject's first name is Charles.^[3]

Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at a minimum Nash, O'Connor, Mackay, Cunningham, and Strickland per nom and Aoziwe. Undecided on Larkin and Barker (having trouble reading the sources cited by Aoziwe). Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is hillarious, one editor objects to this not being a long enough nomination, not inclusive enough, and yet this multi-person nomination is tending towards having multiple outcomes because the level of sourcing on the six people involves is not uniform. I have to admit part of me feels that for AfD we should only allow one article to be nominated at a time. I think this is about as large as is reasonable for a multi-article nomination, if not larger than is at all reasonable. I am thinking a 5 article absolute top limit with no exceptions and very heavy encouragement to not even go that large would be much better. I see absolutely no way that having a larger scale nomination would be helpful. If would focus us even less on the individual information on individual subjects that we need to justify articles, and more on the general ideas of what is and is not notable, which is not the subject at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm against these "class" multi people nominations, as I've seen some of them pass AFD on their merits, and others fail. There is a matching unified case for all of them, they are different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I have reviewed my assessments of source material for Barker and Larkin, and both are weaker. See above. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2022 (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.