Deletion of Ron Ainsworth

Comment: per Nick-D's cogent argument. The deeply flawed WP:NSPORTS can be used to claim that the subject is notable but "without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" I find it hard to see how this article meets  nor how a decnt article can be written. I also find it difficult to see how an article that basically rewrites the infobox in prose actually improves the encyclopedia. A better solution for these types of articles would be to redirect to a relevant list, if one can be identified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As per , he's notable.  He played in the premier rugby league competition of his time. That guideline exists to AVOID AfDs like this, as it assumes that if you play sport at a suitable level, then somewhere, maybe not googleable, maybe not online, there will be sufficient coverage.  St George is a big club, there are probably yearbooks, club histories and maybe papers from the day that also cover him (none of which I have access to), but for now, an index-like coverage proving that he played at the top level is sufficient
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS)

Comment: It's worth noting that  states that rugby league players are only "presumed notable" if they've played at the professional level - this doesn't meant that they're always notable. Given that none of the sources provided in the article (which can be assumed to be reasonably comprehensive thanks to the use of the NLA's Trove search of old newspapers) provide any biographical details on Ainsworth beyond a few sentences and statistics on his short and unremarkable playing career, I don't think that notability is established here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS)

Comment: I'm surprised that this was relisted, since the consensus can't get much clearer than this.  You know, I'm not entirely crazy about  either, but the idea, that "presumed notable" is a loophole for argument runs contrary to the entire idea behind subject specific guidelines.  If you begin trying to prove that this player with only 4 games shouldn't be notable because you can't find a lot of coverage from 1946, but this other one who played 4 games in 2006 should be notable because he's all over the internet, it defeats the purpose of presumed notability.  If  strikes someone as a silly, foolish, dumb, what-were-they-thinking policy... then work at changing the ''policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:ATHLETE)