This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Roley Young is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Roley Young is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
I note you have dePRODed on the basis that the article's subject meets WP:RLN. As you will be aware a subject notability guideline (SNG) does not trump WP:GNG. Can you please advise how this article satisfies the GNG ? In the mean time, if the article's subject is sufficiently notable surely it should be able to be linked to from some other article, and hence could you please do so.
Hi Eno, I agree that the subject guidelines just create an assumption of notability, but that articles still have to meet GNG. One of the rationales for the assumptions is because older sources are not often online. This policy helps avoid recentism - avoiding a situation where all current players have articles but not all older players. As you can see, I was able to add two additional independent sources in five minutes yesterday. One was a paper article that was digitialised, which indicates that there is plenty of coverage there - someone just needs the time to develop the article further. Mattlore (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I found the digitised paper too, before I PRODed. I even checked TROVE, but found nothing. Yes fully agree re recentism - google is mostly blind to anything over ten years old. The digitised source is only the briefest of mentions and is only very ordinary routine sports reporting. There is no indication of anything that will allow an in-depth article to ever be developed, and if the the player really is notable why do they only ever appear once in the digitised publication of the time ? Sorry, but you have not convinced me at all. Aoziwe (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Got my self confused about which article I was watching !! But my comment still stands. Aoziwe (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
