- Dolf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Since the article was deleted, Dolf has since become notible. Dr. Patrick Chaplin was the first person ever to earn a PHD in darts and is the world leader in dart history. It was awarded by Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge – the title of his dissertation being: ‘DARTS IN ENGLAND 1900-1939 – A SOCIAL HISTORY’. He noted Dolf in his newsletter http://www.patrickchaplin.com/News%20Letters/Issue%2013%20April%202011/Dr.%20Darts%20Newsletter%20-%20Issue%2013%20DKONLINE.pdf on page 13. The references for Cricket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_(darts)) and Dartball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartball) appear don't appear to be as strong as this reference yet are considered notable. Cross referencing the notability guide lines, this reference to Dolf is meets the following:
The source is Reliable Source is a Secondary Source The source is independent of the subject It was mentioned by a reputable media/expert source
Please indicate the specific reasons to why you consider Dolf as not notable. Jasonbook99 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting admin's comment. The article was substantially the same as the version deleted by the AfD discussion. The only addition was the link to Chaplin's newsletter. Ignoring the issue of whether the newsletter is a reliable source, the coverage is not significant: it's a scant paragraph about Dolf that's really just a pointer to the website. I don't see enough change to permit a new article or even to relist. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability, the content of the article does not directly affect the notibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. It would appear that what is important is the reliability of Chaplin's newsletter as a source. Also, please indicate how the references for Cricket and Dartball suffice but the one for Dolf doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbook99 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your first sentence relates to, I'm guessing you as reading the "the article was substantially..." as a notability argument. It isn't. It's reference to the speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G4 which covers "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." which is where C.Fred sees your recreation. The standard of general notability is for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. C.Fred concentrates on the non-trivial part of that, the coverage in that newsletter is trivial it tells us pretty much nothing about the game, merely notes it's existance. In your words "It was mentioned", the guidline talks about addressing direcly in detail which is significantly more than mentioned. Even if it were more detailed the other aspects such as requiring multiple sources haven't been fulfilled... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the line being quoted is wrong it is actually Notability does not directly affect the content of articles. That simply means that each piece of content does not need to be notiable in its own right to be included in an article about a notiable subject.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but the other is also correct, notability is determined by factors outside of wikipedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse essentially per C.Fred - the article was identical to the previously deleted version apart from the addition of the newsletter and the content of the newsletter doesn't constitute significant coverage. Hut 8.5 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|