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 Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI. Consensus is clear that sourcing is insufficient. History remains under the redirect should that change. Star Mississippi 00:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Duparc (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:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5; we don't even know his first name. Tagged for notability since March.

Prod reverted by Das osmnezz with the justification helped France achieve silver in the Olympics which was regarded as the top worlds football competition before introduction of World Cup also definitely has off-line sources as a result, but as only three teams participated in football at the 1900 Olympics fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and France. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI. Note that not knowing the full name is entirely irrelevant for notability, plenty of example of notable people whose identity are a mystery. GiantSnowman 18:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Looks like a 1E case to me given that nothing seems to be known about him other than that he was apparently in the squad for an early Olympic "tournament", and didn't even play. I also don't believe the claim that in 1900 the Olympics "was regarded as the top worlds football competition" is true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, but I firmly believe the Olympics as being the world's "top" football competition in 1900. The world's first international football match was only played in 1872, and that was between England and Scotland; FIFA, which organises international football, did not exist until 1904. Having multiple nations competing against each other for more than one match would have been novel; maybe the Olympic football tournament was not well-regarded, but it would certainly have been the "top" competition simply by default.
This was probably brought up in relation to the notability because, like with international footballers today, Duparc was likely one of the best in France and probably one of the best-known. It suggests there are likely sources. Whether we can find them is another question. Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI, while sources may exist, I was not able to find anything. A search of both newspapers.com and Google Books turned up nothing more than passing mentions in a couple of books. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just added something from a mention from searching old French newspapers on Gallica archive. I'm not going to chime in with a !vote until I've seen if there's really not much to be said, but there is at least some coverage of what his playing was like so far. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adding my thoughts now, having gone through the archive more and finding - and I've only looked at two months of one newspaper so far - regular coverage of Duparc's team in the sports pages; when the column spreads to more information than just scores and team lists, it also bothers to give some detail on him (and other significant players), so I don't find this coverage to be always trivial. Added what I think is an appropriate level of detail (if we're comparing to one modern football season) to the article. Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a lot of sources you've added, but all the ones I have checked are passing mentions. If there are some that are not, could you provide the best WP:THREE for the rest of us to review? BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, they're not all passing mentions (especially in a cycling newspaper of eight pages, where more than a summary is really quite a lot in context); there's even one issue with mini-bios of the important players, and the story about the burglary is in the sports pages but is a whole separate headline story itself, with some focus on Duparc as the main victim (with the elision of the teammate's name, I interpret the story as being like a "celebrity interest", that such a burglary is news because readers of the time were interested in who it happened to, Duparc). I would prefer to be able to go through the whole archives of at least that newspaper before being asked to "show the best", or someone else can if they want to help. Of course, there are some sources that are just passing mentions, added for small verification and because perhaps that match sounded interesting and an article about at least that Championnat could probably be created from the sources. But I would really argue that getting regular coverage for being involved in the top domestic league, with a newspaper also bothered to comment on their prospects/style of play, and winning several titles, should pass sporting GNG. The logic being that if someone isn't that interesting off the pitch, what besides their sports record do we have? Which seems to be the standard for inclusion as regards some minor current footballers. Kingsif (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the burglary story, all it says about Duparc was they stole the shoes of Duparc, as well as his wallet, and that Duparc had to borrow money to return to Paris. I would consider that a passing mention, since it is a trivial mention of him as a victim within a much larger story. BilledMammal (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the philosophical argument there was that a racing newspaper isn't picking up that story without some reason, is it? And since the other footballer wasn't named, the reason seems to be this guy. So, important in his day. Kingsif (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      But I would really argue that getting regular coverage for being involved in the top domestic league, with a newspaper also bothered to comment on their prospects/style of play, and winning several titles, should pass sporting GNG. The logic being that if someone isn't that interesting off the pitch, what besides their sports record do we have? Which seems to be the standard for inclusion as regards some minor current footballers. The problem is with assigning importance to where, when, and under what context coverage is published based on our personal expectations; we can't just add those factors in to bolster SIGCOV because we can't actually use them for coverage in the article. Doing so would also introduce a lot more subjectivity and bias into AfD -- what one person considers an indication of significance could be viewed as routine or promotional or unimportant by another. On top of that, sportsperson bios require a source of SIGCOV to already be identified before we can make any assumptions about nonspecific additional coverage existing. Since nothing has been found, none of the subject's accomplishments nor the presence of non-significant media attention can be used to justify keeping. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added since the article was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above and that the article was vastly expanded with many sources added. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best there is only 1 source that provides sigcov, which still falls short of meeting GNG. Whether even that actually constitutes sigcov is also up to debate, per above; there is a match summary, which is not typically regarded as establishing notability, and some very routine stuff like someone "was kicked so hard in the stomach he had to go off". Avilich (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. A sentence or two discussing someone's performance in a match recap is never SIGCOV, otherwise we would have articles on every single moderately successful high school athlete. Also, coverage in one brand-new, low-circulation (<25k), sporting-specific newspaper is far from showing the subject received broad, sustained media attention. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 18 September 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.