Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shaw (Australia)

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

[edit] Peter Shaw (Australia)

Peter Shaw (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable person, only hit from google was for this wiki page. All others not this Peter Shaw. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of verifiable notability Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Placeholder undecided I removed a speedy tag because there are some notability claims here. This guy actually could be notable for any one of a number of reasons, but I worry that he's actually achieved lots of nn things that amass to look quite good, but don't stand up to scrutiny. Specifically, I wonder about whether he played 1st XV rugby for Victoria, which would seal this for me as a stone cold Keeper. As it stands, I'm undecided, leaning toward Delete, but have solicited expert input from a Rugby Union specialist. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing compelling has emerged here to suggest it should be kept. Doesn't seem very notable to me. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- As per nom. Playing rugby in Victoria (1st XV or otherwise) does not constitute notability. For the record I placed the original speedy tag on the original article. Cheers! Xdenizen (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I don't believe that this article is a hoax, but unfortunately I have not been able to find independent sources that confirm Shaw played for Victoria. If these can be found then I believe he meets the notability criteria, and will change my vote to keep. Representing his state is certainly a notable achievement, even if he only played one match for them. However I havn't been able to successfully verify this, so have to vote delete at the moment. - Shudde talk 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Victoria is not a rugby playing state - it has no teams in any pro league, not a first class team. Prorbably no Victorians have ever played for Australia, for instance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Although I understand what you are trying to say, I think you are wrong. Victoria has had several Wallabies, including some that have played during the professional era. As well, Shaw's article says he played for Victoria some time between 1994 and 1996, which means he probably played for them in the amateur era, or very early in the professional one. Certainly back then there was no distinction between professional and amateur state teams; obviously rugby is not nearly as popular in Victoria as in NSW or Queensland, but it's still played there. They have had something of a professional team there recently as well (see Melbourne Rebels) and did bid to have a Super 14 team (which went to Western Force instead). Anyway, point is, just because he's Victorian doesn't mean he's not notable. - Shudde talk 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Weary Dunlop comes to mind as a Victorian Wallaby as does Ewen McKenzie. Also Bob Cowper's father Denis "Dave" Cowper. Bob's nickname was "Wallaby". Having said that, I don't believe that playing rugby for Victoria (which at this stage we have only the word of the author to substantiate) makes one notable. It is neither professional or at the highest possible level of the sport. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In 1994 and 1995, bar playing for Australia, it would have been the highest possible level. No teams were professional back then. I would also like to query, had Melbourne got a Super 14 team instead of Perth, would that make him notable? - Shudde talk 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That make the Wallabies, not Victoria - the highest possible level. Having stood in the outer at Olympic Park in my youth watching many Victorian teams beaten 80+ to nil by touring teams I have no illusions about the level of rugby played. To claim that Victorian players in the pre-professional era are as notable as as their equivalents in the Waratahs and the Reds (weren't they the Maroons then?) is not a viable suggestion. As for the Melbourne getting the Super 14 franchise changing things, my answer is no. The Victorian state side would have remained a different entity from the S14 team and the playing list would have little, if anything, in common. The Victorian state side would be made up of players from the VRU competition while the S14 team would draw its players from the Sydney of Brisbane club competitions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is a picture - [1] -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article had its AfD notice removed and a note left stating that this discussion was closed and the result was to keep. I reverted back, as this is not closed, and as far as I can see, there is no consensus yet. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Many of the web hits come from the Local Hero website, whose co-founder is ... Peter Shaw. I think subject lacks genuine notability, and largely agree that his sporting exploits are for a minority sport in Victoria. Murtoa (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Look I'm a newbie and removed the delete flag (cause I have heard of him, used LocalHero) but on review I say delete. He is well known (not as a rugby player though) but not notable as per the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiafelix (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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.