Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Roseberry: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:57, 9 April 2015 editNiteshift36 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers41,775 edits →John Roseberry ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:03, 9 April 2015 edit undoNiteshift36 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers41,775 edits →John Roseberry Next edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:Jerod here are three whole and independent articles dedicated to him. , , you can read the OCR text for the article here . This here is bigger than a passing mention but not a whole article . ] (]) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		:Jerod here are three whole and independent articles dedicated to him. , , you can read the OCR text for the article here . This here is bigger than a passing mention but not a whole article . ] (]) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
	:*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. ] (]) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		:*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. ] (]) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
	:::~~{{u\|~~Niteshift36}}, Notability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, ], a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. I consider your hostile response ]y. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		:::Niteshift36, Notability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, ], a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. I consider your hostile response ]y. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
			::::::*Well, since the response wasn't to you, whether if not you find it "bitey" is irrelevant. Second, BITE is "don't bite the newcomers". Since neither you, nor the editor I responded to can play the new editor card, that's a pointless reference to make. ] (]) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
	:An Olympic alternate makes him notable and the "local" paper provides verification. You have already posted your vote. Have a nice day. ] (]) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		:An Olympic alternate makes him notable and the "local" paper provides verification. You have already posted your vote. Have a nice day. ] (]) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
	:::*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. ] (]) 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)		:::*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. ] (]) 17:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:03, 9 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)

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)

commentHe was the founder of his own style. He has had whole articles written about him in various magazines including the Daily Nebraskan. He was the sport director of the year for the cornhusker state games. 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. He is a runner up in the US Nationals in Judo. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

DELETE I wish him the best in his endeavors, but as far as the encyclopedia goes, he doesn't make it past

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)

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)

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)
- 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)

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

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)

Niteshift36, Notability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. I consider your hostile response WP:BITEy. Wikic¤l¤gy 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, since the response wasn't to you, whether if not you find it "bitey" is irrelevant. Second, BITE is "don't bite the newcomers". Since neither you, nor the editor I responded to can play the new editor card, that's a pointless reference to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Keep:- There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution founder of a recognized institution. Wikic¤l¤gy 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that first source isn't a reliable source. Second, ARTIST doesn't apply here. MANOTE is for martial artists. Third, the style he founded isn't notable under MANOTE, so founding it doesn't help. "Widely noted" would take more than a couple of entries in books nobody bought. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of WP:RS? How are those books that discussed the subject in details not reliable sources? WP:MANOTE is an alternative to WP:GNG. Subject doesn't have to meet WP:MANOTE if WP:GNG is met, again motability is a measure of the available independent reliable sources in the subject locality. Sources don't have to come from heaven. For example, Ramsey Nouah, a Nigerian actor don't have to appear in New York Times or India Times to become notable. Wikic¤l¤gy 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of MANOTE and it's relationship to GNG. My mention if it was your claim that ARTIST somehow applied here. It doesn't. If we're going to use a topic specific guideline (one that takes into account the common specifics of the topic), then we should use the correct one, not some poorly applied, unrelated one. What is a RS? Well the policy you unnecessarily linked answers that for us. One of the biggest would be a reputation for editorial oversight. Clearly the freeserver hosted personal website wouldn't pass. I invited you to take that site to RSN and see how many people agree with you about the reliability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about only one source here? I mean multiple sources established the subject notability. I'm not talking about subject own website here. Several sources pointed out in the article and even with a quick google search are third-party sources, that are independent of the subject. Wikic¤l¤gy 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In my initial response to you, I said "that first source isn't a reliable source". You offered hathagojuryukaratedo.freeservers.com as evidence of his importance. That site is not a RS. Not even close. I'd love to see you take that to RSN. I've addressed other sources in responses to others or at the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to add that all we have is a relatively small cluster of individual schools under a particular name not a style which is recognized in the karate world as significant.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

commentthe organization is notable. he is also a US Olympic Alternate. he won multiple judo championships. he is the subject of numerous independent articles. he easily passes GNG. Stay with your opinion Wikicology. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As PRehse correctly pointed out, the style itself is fairly small and non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep As per CrazyAces489, and especially the part about the article subject being a founder of a style of karate. I also agree with Wikic¤l¤gy when he stated "There are multiple third party reliable sources that established the subject notability as a martial artists, apart from the Reliable sources already present in the article. In addition, the subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#1 which says that an artist is notable if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.This source confirmed him as an important figure in addition to the sources already cited in the article. Also he is a founder of a recognized institution founder of a recognized institution." Article subject clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST#1, and has passed over the threshold of notability WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you folks from the article creation project keep citing ARTIST? This guy isn't an artist. Then you cut and paste the same unreliable source as "evidence" of meeting a standard that the guy isn't subject to. That source isn't even close to passing RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment WordSeventeen I agree with you. You are right there is enough GNG in this article. Niteshift36 maybe they see something you don't see! CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When you use the incorrect guideline, I'm sure you do see something different. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete I was avoiding this but some of the comments are drawing me in. The relevant guidelines are WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. I suppose WP:ATHLETE could be considered but I have no idea why we have two editors bringing up WP:ARTIST. The subject does not meet either WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE. He neither competed at the highest level (for Judo that would be the World Championships or the Olympics) nor did he found a significant style of karate. At most it is a cluster of schools. High rank, titles and memberships in soke councils (or similar self-congratulating organizations) have, and for good reason, never been considered as a base for notability. This brings us to WP:GNG and I don't think, when you actually look at the sources listed is being met. The best one was the Lincoln article but in reality that is nothing more than a local interest piece (in my opinion) and is pretty borderline. The freeserver page is in no way a RS and I don't see how it is even part of the discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

comment He meets GNG, and is a strong well known martial artist. The problem with MANOTE is that it is biased against martial arts that isn't in the Olympics or has a world championships. Only two martial arts compete in the Olympics - Judo and Taekwondo! What happens with martial arts in Aikido? What defines a "world championship" ? What about ninjitsu? What about Yoga? There is an inherent problem with MANOTE as many martial arts do NOT compete! There are many RS that are used. It proves that he was an Olympic Alternate which shows notability and the first person to earn a black belt in judo and karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is much more to MANOTE than world championships. If Roseberry's style was notable (which MANOTE provides guidelines for), then this might be a different conversation. Since Yoga isn't a martial art, I'll ask....what about it? What does that have to do with anything? Neither MANOTE or ATHLETE use being an Olympic alternate as an indicator of notability. ATHLETE says competed in Olympics. The alternate not only doesn't compete unless something happens, they often don't even make the trip to the games. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What about Aikido? What about Ninjitsu? Do you see the bias? Some martial arts have a competitive aspect, some do not. He qualifies under WP:Artist and GNG! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see the non-existant bias. Where did you get this notion that only arts with a world championship are notable or that the only way to become notable is to win one? None of us have said that. And I could careless is he passes "ARTIST", because that isn't applicable here. He's not an artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

GNG is always an acceptable standard, but there's no indication he meets that. Since he is a judoka, I don't see the validity of your argument regarding certain martial arts being at a disadvantage. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He is more known for Karate. Please read the biography. He does qualify via GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete I have no idea why people are using the notability criteria for artists, unless they don't know the difference between an "artist" and a "martial artist". The coverage from the Lincoln paper is local color and I see nothing that shows the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that are necessary to meet WP:GNG. Since he never competed at the Olympics or world championships there's nothing to show he meets WP:ATHLETE. There's also no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. As far as some of the specific claims go, I was not able to find any listing of U.S. judo national championship results that mention Roseberry and the claim he was an alternate for the 1964 U.S. Olympic team lacks supporting evidence (and even if it was true it wouldn't be sufficient to show notability). In fact, Black Belt magazine's reporting of the trials specifically mentions all of the winners and second place finishers saying they would be training together to prep for the 1964 Olympics and Roseberry is not mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He is more than a Judo practitioner. He is a founder of a style of karate and an Aikido practitioner. That link does not show third place finishers. The article given states he was an Olympic alternate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories: