Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Roseberry: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:39, 7 April 2015

John Roseberry

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

Judoka with no significant coverage to meet GNG who also fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:MANOTE. No evidence he ever placed at an open national championship (military events don't count).Mdtemp (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a great guy, but his "claims to fame" of don't really get him past notability. Brief mentions in notable publications don't do it. The system he founded doesn't pass MANOTE and histories written by his students to enhance their own marketability don't help. In the end, the subject lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentHe was the founder of his own style. He has had whole articles written about him in various magazines including the Daily Nebraskan. ^[1] He was the sport director of the year for the cornhusker state games. ^[2] He was an Olympic Alternate for the 1964 Olympic Games. He is the first non-Asian to have received black belts in both Judo and Karate. ^[3] He is a runner up in the US Nationals in Judo. ^[4] CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE There are no indications of his notability. There are only three sentences verified that could be possibly lead to any level of notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment a pioneer of okinawan martial arts in america does make him notable. ^[5]CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I wish him the best in his endeavors, but as far as the encyclopedia goes, he doesn't make it past [[WP:BARE|the bare minimum requirements of being encyclopaedic-ally notable. Longevitydude (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentA founder of one style (karate), an active competitor in another style (Judo), and a pioneer in Karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Strong keep as a founder of a style of karate, a pioneer of okinawan karate in the United States, an Olympic Alternate in Judo, an active competitor in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a style doesn't get you past MANOTE, when the style itself doesn't pass MANOTE. Merely existing doesn't make it notable.

Keep The article suffers from source bombardment but there are at least a couple seemingly reliable sources that cover the subject (WP:GNG). See the Daily Nebraskan link and the google books link that CrazyAces489 provided. Do the sources provide a strong case for the subject's notability? I'll admit that they don't and my gut tells me this article is a "Delete", but I don't know much about karate and the rules are the rules and notability is to be presumed according to WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There are only trivial mentions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerod here are three whole and independent articles dedicated to him. [1], [2], you can read the OCR text for the article here [3]. This here is bigger than a passing mention but not a whole article [4] . CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, please stop posting the same links over and over. Coverage by the local paper doesn't do that much for me. When it's part of a series profiling different people, even less so. The local paper probably writes about a local high school QB too, but that doesn't make him notable either. A mention in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author (your last source) also does nothing for me. Lastly, the article you say is more than a passing mention is exactly what a passing mention is. The article is about the festival. Mentioning that Roseberry has a local school and put on a demo is a passing mention. The article isn't about him and says very little about him, aside from the fact that he owns a school and can shout commands. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Olympic alternate makes him notable and the "local" paper provides verification. You have already posted your vote. Have a nice day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you don't see me voting again! I can' however, comment on your comments as often as I want. How on earth can you think it's ok for you to address multiple editors, but I can't address you? You seriously need to learn how the process works. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all the best on your endeavors. Have a wonderful day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, being an alternate doesn't pass NSPORTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS is just a guide. He passes WP:GNG and that is what counts. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. In 8 years of editing here, I had no clue that NSPORTS was a guideline. Of course GNG is what counts and he isn't passing it. Thanks for needlessly wikilinking me to a policy that I'm well acquainted with. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Everyone learns something everyday. I learn something new all the time. I am also here to help others. He is passing GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you enough credit to presume that you'd recognize that was sarcasm. Now I'm not so sure that I should have been that generous. Since you don't bother to try to comply with RS and have demonstrated you're not really that adept at separating a passing mention from significant coverage, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in your GNG proclamation. Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to build up wikipedia in a peaceful and nice manner. I don't see the point in using sarcasm as people might be offended by it. I am not the only one who disagrees with you. That is why we have a consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what else people may find offensive? Acting like they haven't managed to figure out the basics in 8 years. What else could people find offensive? Creating tons of questionable articles, spammed with non-reliable sources and telling people that your role is to create and improving them is for someone else to do. You are correct, you're not alone. There is another editor who even concedes that his gut tells him this articles is a delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.dailynebraskan.com/martial-arts-offer-discipline-for-life/article_4893dcf7-d758-554f-aacf-d62eebfd7c0c.html

[2] ttps://www.cornhuskerstategames.com/index.php?module=cms&page=29

[3] ttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/43728823/

[4] ttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/43728823/

[5] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=KwjtqbXTLqwC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=John+Roseberry+karate&source=bl&ots=AFYJRLJCUr&sig=Z6FhVkJC-QHKOWAx7a29tORMaPs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z2wjVZXhIcXcsAXTmoDIDw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=John%20Roseberry%20karate&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::*I was giving you enough credit to presume that you'd recognize that was sarcasm. Now I'm not so sure that I should have been that generous. Since you don't bother to try to comply with RS and have demonstrated you're not really that adept at separating a passing mention from significant coverage, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in your GNG proclamation. Clearly I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with you. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 ::I am here to build up wikipedia in a peaceful and nice manner.  I don't see the point in using sarcasm as people might be offended by it.  I am not the only one who disagrees with you.  That is why we have a consensus.  [[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
+::*You know what else people may find offensive? Acting like they haven't managed to figure out the basics in 8 years. What else could people find offensive? Creating tons of questionable articles, spammed with non-reliable sources and telling people that your role is to create and improving them is for ''someone else'' to do. You are correct, you're not alone. There is another editor who even concedes that his gut tells him this articles is a delete. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)