Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 14 April 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shag Musa Medani). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Olympics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Olympics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Olympics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Olympics

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 keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Confait

Vincent Confait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. There are 3 non-database/results sources. This one isn't SIGCOV as it's 2 small 1 line mentions. This and this are about his son dying and not SIGCOV about Vincent. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Medalling in Indian Ocean Island Games is not considered a top tier competition for WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of mass AFDing substantially improved articles mere minutes after they're improved? Can't you just focus on worse quality articles instead of obsessing over getting everything improved by a particular user deleted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not substantially improved as it is lacking in third party indepth sources. My nomination stands and you won't deter me. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely a substantial improvement. In what way would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It still is lacking in indepth third party coverage. I've already commented how the added third party sources are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's a weak case but the Nation coverage gets close to WP:SIGCOV and I think the ongoing coverage of his career (plus his medals at the Indian Ocean Island Games and appearances at two Olympic games make it very likely that contemporary WP:SIGCOV of his career exists. The fact that he competed in two Olympiads makes it harder to select a redirect as an AtD, and while it is not immediately apparent that he passes WP:NTRACK he appears to have been a dominant athlete in Seychelles during his career. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Per WP:HEY, article has been expanded with WP:SIGCOV from Nation discussing the subject. Let'srun (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per found coverage in the Nation and WP:NBASIC. And its obvious that a two-time Olympian with nearly two dozen national championship wins and many records, who competed in the offline era, would have further coverage in Seychellois archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very nice expansion work by Habst. The Seychelles Nation obit appears to provide the needed SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What am I missing here? Most of the sources are just listings, which clearly don't count. The reports of his death are the only sources that contain any biographical information about him at all, but these are reports occasioned by the crash, and neither leads on him being an athlete. The Seychelles news agency report doesn't mention the fact at all, and the Seychelles Nation report just has his mother's words: "Not only was he an athlete who did the hurdles, long jump and long distance running, he was also involved in officiating. He also took part in the world airlines athletics competition and came out third in the 5km race of the under-24 year-old category in a time of 24 minutes". But, in fact, both articles are only about him because, sadly, he died when he was employed as a crew member on a plane that crashed. That is, even the reports of his death fail to give us any evidence that he was a notable athlete. What we are entirely lacking is any kind of secondary source that looks at his life as an athlete. The news of his death is sad to read, but that is not a reason for keeping an article such as this. Wikipedia is not an obituary. I would be open to a suitable redirect as an ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m assuming you meant his son, Alex Confait, instead of Vincent Confait, right? His son was one of the fatalities in the crash of Flydubai Flight 981, not him. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well that's part of what I am missing. Thanks for gently pointing that out. But in that case this even clearer. The only biographical information we have is for his son. There is still nothing in the Seychelles news agency piece at all, and in the Seychelles Nation piece, we are limited to "... Vincent Confait, a former high hurdler who also represented Seychelles at the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980." This is not SIGCOV, gives no biographical information at all, and the information that his son died in an air accident is primary sourced. The report is primary for the news reporting of the crash. There is nothing here from which a biographical article can be written. We are looking for someone who has written about Vincent Confait's athletic career, and who has analysed and synthesised primary sources into something secondary. We don't have it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, I think this is based upon a misunderstanding. Please see "Vincent Confait" site:nation.sc, there are dozens of hits (84 by my count) in Google's index of nation.sc alone with much more significant coverage than the Athletics Cup article I included. --Habst (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And perusing these, I don't see any significant coverage. Do you? We need to discuss sources, not search results. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He freaking won 19 national championships and was most certainly one of the very very best in Seychelles in the offline era. Do Nation archives extend back into the 1980s? If not, that means nothing from his era has been checked – do you really think that such an extremely accomplished athlete who still gets discussed today would not have sigcov from his era? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But I will be persuaded otherwise if we can find any sources. We write articles from secondary sources, not gut feeling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can also use common sense (notability/NSPORT is only a guideline), and remember that if we haven't looked at anything from the subject's time period, its silly to say they're non-notable when they still get regularly covered today and have absolutely extensive accomplishments that are virtually guaranteed to have been covered significantly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And wait, you don't think that Seychelles would cover their best athlete when he competed and won nearly two dozen national titles and many international medals, but then cover him / mention him numerous times when he's years retired??? How does that make any sense? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh they will report races. But then WP:PRIMARYNEWS would apply. We are looking for the secondary sourcing, and thus far we have none. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage being contemporary does not equate to being primary! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not what I said. Have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting on these types of races is almost always not primary because most newspapers include analysis along with results listings. --Habst (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You would have a very hard time arguing that point with pretty much any historian. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would their specific issue be? Per PRIMARYNEWS, "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material." --Habst (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is meta. Look, if you don't know that reporting of a race wins are primary sources, you have some reading to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all are, but we only need a few with sufficient analysis to achieve notability. --Habst (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The present sources are sufficient to establishes WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Northern Rhodesia at the 1964 Summer Olympics as Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics redirects there. ✗plicit 03:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constantino Kapambwe

Constantino Kapambwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. 2 third party sources added, the rest are databases/results listings. This is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kapambwe was the top Olympian from his country and was noticed by The Baltimore Sun for running the entire Olympic marathon barefoot. It's all but certain there is more coverage than what I found; looking at Zambian newspapers would be a start, which is important to note because none of their 1960s archives have been checked yet. Yes, there's a systemic bias against African countries that affects the coverage available to us, but that's not the same thing as saying that no coverage exists, or even worse that we shouldn't look at all. --Habst (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics: No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The Baltimore Sun "notice" flagged by the "keep" !voter above is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: However, three of the contestants started out barefoot. Harbanslal Harbanslal of India, Constantino Kapambwe of Northern Rhodesia and Mathias Kanda of Rhodesia. However, redirecting as an AtD will preserve the page history should future sourcing the qualifies this subject for mainspace be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nobody is saying that "we shouldn't look", we should, in theory, but more importantly, we "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". According to developments in policy, this must be in place before the article is created, not an infinite number of years after it's created – especially when there is no clear indication of notability such as here. I agree that there are issues regarding behaviour, as well as the D-word, disruptive editing, and I'd like to propose that these athlete prods/afds are placed on hold for a while, as they and the oftentimes nonsensical arguments therein are getting very tiresome. Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The sources provided in the article do not help in establishing notability since they are either a database or don't provide significant coverage of the subject at hand. Searches performed on (but not limited to) Google or Newspapers.com didn't turn up any sources that would help establish notability. Looking at what we currently have, there doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight, the keep argument in this case isn't in conflict with either of those guidelines. If we have reliable indicators that GNG-contributing sources exist, they can be used to fulfill WP:N even if they aren't linked in the article. --Habst (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with what you're saying and it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that these sources do indeed exist but we're missing proof that they actually do. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per comments above by Dclemens1971 and Geschichte. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics : Subject doesn't appear to currently have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. While there may be offline coverage somewhere covering the subject, we can't keep any WP:BLP based on that possibility alone. Redirect as a WP:ATD with the page history preserved in the event better sourcing is found. Let'srun (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, in agreement with comments above. XwycP3 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Zambia at the 1968 Summer Olympics. ✗plicit 03:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Muemba

Enoch Muemba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. There are 2 non database sources added this is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The other third party source is a book, but I am unable to verify it's SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits, I think there's a strong WP:NEXIST case to be made here because Muemba was one of the first ever runners to represent Zambia internationally, and zero Zambian newspapers have been found because their 1960s archives have not been checked yet. --Habst (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Change to navigation page‎. There is a consensus that this article shouldn't exist as it currently does. Dclemens1971 makes a good proposition and it has support.

I have not previously performed this type of closure but have made best endeavours to do it. If I have screwed up in any way I would appreciate anyone capable of correcting my mistake doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sy Savané

Mohamed Sy Savané (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Navify per Dclemens1971 below, though my reasoning remains the same. Frank Anchor 13:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Clearly zero sources meeting SPORTSCRIT #5. @Dclemens1971, even if the subject met NTRACK, NTRACK still requires the subject meet GNG and a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been achieved. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The SNG means significant coverage is likely to exist when certain conditions are met. But if we can't rely on them and must also demonstrate GNG is met, then we might as well not have SNGs at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971, the SNG states The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. [...] All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. This follows from the close of NSPORTS2022: Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5). Note that NSPORT has always required subjects meet GNG, but pre-RfC only had to demonstrate this with sources "eventually"; this resulted in the proliferation of athlete stubs that were very hard to remove due to the expectation that lack of coverage must be "proven".
    Nowadays, the SNG is still a weaker immediate requirement than establishing GNG in that in practice it often permits sports bios of athletes who meet one of the sport-specific criteria, like NATH, to escape initial deletion if a SIGCOV source is actually identified. WP:N also states that the SNGs are merely presumptions of notability, and that establishing notability does ultimately require IRS SIGCOV: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.
    I'll also note that, like several other SNGs, NSPORT can be interpreted better as a guide to article creators on which topics are most likely to be notable rather than as post-creation inclusion criteria; an editor can be more confident they're choosing a notable topic before they put in the effort of searching for sources to build the article. The SNG also helps NPP by providing quick proof that a subject has a valid claim to notability and thus doesn't warrant CSD A7 tagging.
    Thank you for coming to my TEDx talk... JoelleJay (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORT can be interpreted better as a guide to article creators on which topics are most likely to be notable rather than as post-creation inclusion criteria; an editor can be more confident they're choosing a notable topic before they put in the effort of searching for sources to build the article. – Honestly, I don't know anyone who does that... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, people definitely use it to choose which topics to create articles on...they just maybe don't care about the whole "effort" thing once they feel assured the page won't be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Look, this athlete was clearly one of the most accomplished in Guinean history, having several still-standing national records across varying distances, including 800m and then 10,000m, which is unusual. He competed at a number of international tournaments as one of the only Guineans selected. I've researched thousands of athletes and thus I know, athletes like this get coverage. Now, where would the coverage be? In Guinean newspapers. And has even one page of any newspaper in the history of Guinea been searched? Nope. Its ridiculous to delete so many star African athletes for whom all common sense would indicate have coverage when no one is looking in relevant archives where the coverage would be – its especially ridiculous that these mass nominated articles are almost all in much better shape than the average Olympian article. Honestly, I feel like we should just IAR and keep this – I don't think deleting this improves the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navify as an AtD. There's a new template ({{Navigation page}}) for an alternative to disambiguation/redirection that I think we could try here, particularly since there are multiple pages that discuss this athlete. It would serve the same function as a redirect but would provide more visibility for the page should future SIGCOV become available to support a standalone page that complies with WP:NSPORT. Sample:

Wikipedia does not have an article on Mohamed Sy Savané, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:

Thoughts? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, thank you for breaking up the monotony with a new idea. I would prefer this to a redirect, the only issue is it doesn't list some things like date of birth, familial relations, etc. Is there any way to link a page like this to a Wikidata item? (Another idea: In theory, all pages without SIGCOV could be written with no loss of information as Abstract Wikipedia articles...) --Habst (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why not? Turning the article into a navpage would not break the link to the Wikidata item; even redirects retain their Wikidata links in the left hand nav (see Mohamed Ould Brahim / [1] for one of the recent outcomes of these discussions). @LibStar, what do you think of this as an alternative to redirection? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Is there any reason not to include at least the year of birth of the subject? We do routinely include birth and death years on disambiguation pages. BD2412 T 02:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea (and it's an active discussion over at the Village Pump) is that if we include more and more pieces of information it might as well be an actual article, and then we're right back at a notability debate. Restraining the page text only to the basic navigational function fulfills the purpose of a navpage without creeping back into standalone page territory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. There are other active AFDs for which this could work as well (e.g. a less than notable athlete who competed and did not advance in multiple Olympic games). Frank Anchor 13:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Abdul Kareem

Abdul Aziz Abdul Kareem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I expanded the article with new sources including Al Rai describing him as "the grandfather of training". Subject did much more than just competing at a single Olympics, he had a twelve-year career spanning multiple international championships for Kuwait. A Wikipedian who knows Arabic should take a look at these search results for further coverage. --Habst (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Habst's expansion, WP:NBASIC and common sense. Any understanding of the sport and country would indicate that a twelve-year international career with multiple Olympic appearances, and becoming known as the "grandfather of training" for his coaching after his playing career is, I guarantee, something that would be further covered significantly. The issue is that our access to sources from the time are ridiculously poor and this guy has like a dozen names he could have been covered under, and none of us speak Arabic, which makes this extremely hard to search for. Nonetheless a decent article has been developed with his significant accomplishments and coverage has been found showing he was known as a very accomplished figure in Kuwaiti athletics. He's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say "grandfather of training", it says "rapporteur" or "coordination officer" for training.

    The national athletics team is preparing for its external training camp and participation in regional meetings, as well as friendly tournaments, the ninth Asian Games, which will be held in Delmi, and the World Athletics Championship, which will be held in Morocco. The inclusion of new stars in the ranks of the national team, Wydad, has also led to the exclusion of a large number of prominent names from the national team. This has caused a great deal of controversy in the sports community, especially among athletics fans. The person closest to explaining these sudden changes was the player Al-Donli and the member of the board of directors and the rapporteur for training and national teams, Abdul Aziz Abdul Karim Al-Hadba. He explained to us several reasons, as follows: [press release]


    He is a spokesman. JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding this again. What is your source for the machine translation? I have a different read on it, because I don't see the word "spokesman" or "press release" anywhere, and I think what he says is also relevant as reported by a major paper. --Habst (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete upon hearing the arguments I realized that I was hasty to assume the sources where there when they weren't thus I have changed my vote Scooby453w (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What secondary sources are we relying on here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As i stated the sources provided/referenced by habst namley https://archive.org/search?query=%22%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B2+%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%22&sin=TXT which seems to indicate several sources mentioning him (though I don't know Arabic there seems to be alot of them) Scooby453w (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply (the question was not just aimed at you btw - it was a general one). However, I'm not especially impressed by search results. The question is, what secondary sources do we have that we are relying on to say this subject meets WP:GNG. One of those might be secondary, but if no one has read any of them, then I do not see how we are ready to make that determination. To illustrate the problem, the first hit there reads (using machine translation):

    The announcement of the Indian Court of First Instance No. A to 114 The plaintiff - Zahir Latif Aboud to the defendant Asaad Jawad Kadhim Al-Barrak lives in Hindi Mahalla Al-Kas Nada Send the invitation to you. If you do not attend, you will send an agent against you, you will plead against you according to the principles. Judge Fawzi Makhlif Hajim Court, Yadida Al-Karadah, to / Al-Ladih, their boxes are 1 Hassan Abdul Aziz Abdul Kareem Othman Abdel-Ardiz Abdel-Karim Barikh Ka This court issued a decision in the case number 43/1 1, which requires that you pay an amount of (0477) dinars.

    Now that doesn't appear to be the page subject at all. It is certainly not about the subject, the mention, if it is anything, is passing, and that is very clearly a primary source. So that one is clearly out. What about the next one? Well that is an article listing those newly licensed to teach in primary education. The name or namesake of the subject is listed alongside a lot of others. Again, a passing mention in a primary source. We would not be entitled to gather from this that the subject is a teacher, and there is literally nothing else there. Now this issue will persist, because these are hits on the search string in an archive, but they are not actually sources. At the moment, I do not see any secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhapes we could try finding someone who can understand arabic to look for some sources. if any exist for this subject they are likley in Arabic also i believe the al rai article was cited as a reliable source but it has to be downloaded to view it and i haven't had the time yet to read it Scooby453w (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, I'm not sure what result you are referring to. The source cited in the article [2] is about the subject (not a namesake), and it's not merely a listing. See May 10, 1982 coverage page 12.
    Of course I could go and search for Chris Evans (presenter) and the first result might be about the actor, that doesn't mean that the presenter isn't notable. You need to filter out the results that aren't relevant. --Habst (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to the search in archive.org above from Scoony453w. The first source I see is [3] and the second is [4]. My point is that doing a search and presenting the hits is not finding sources. We need to be reading the sources and then discussing those that look good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we already have sources cited in the article. Any additional sources we find on top of that could help build the case, but we agree it's not a negative indication that there will be namesakes in search results. --Habst (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of these are secondary sources in your opinion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Analysis in Al Rai is secondary for one. --Habst (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please paste all the content on Kareem so we can actually validate this is secondary significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Archive.org is down just now. If you have a copy, I would appreciate a paste too. Otherwise it will have to wait. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some coverage is on May 10, 1982 page 12 using archive.org's numbering; it is cited in the article. I don't have it saved if archive.org is down. You can also find it by just searching the subject's Arabic name in that archive. Can retrieve and copy-paste it later today if it's back up --Habst (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing remotely convincing among the unfiltered search results, which clearly do not all correspond to the same subject, e.g. a hit in Egypt for a former college dean in 1968 (when he would have been 16)[5], an announcement for a master's thesis on the Arab League in 1992 in Jordan[6], some Saudi OB/Gyn[7], lost-and-found ads[8][9], and (comprising the vast majority of results I looked at) hits among many context-free lists of names[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. The "grandfather of training" moniker (which I haven't been able to replicate) is simply a bizarre translation of "rapporteur for Jeddah's training and national teams", suggesting this is a completely different person in Saudi Arabia (the order of the names is also not the same, his is "Abdul Aziz Abdul Karim Al-Hadba").[17] JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, thanks for this analysis. What is your source for the machine translation above, because in past AfDs we have discussed that neither of us know Arabic? Also have you tried adding "athletics" or other related terms to narrow the search? --Habst (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't think you needed a source for your machine translation before you put it in mainspace! "مقرر" means "rapporteur". " جدة" is "Jeddah". I ran the whole paragraph through Google Translate, Lingvanex, Reverso, and QuillBot, and they all came back with very similar translations, none of which resembled "grandfather of training" and all of which indicated he was acting as a spokesperson. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding a source, which one was used to create the above paragraph? I used DeepL, which is the recommended translation service by {{Expand Arabic}}. wikt:مقرر shows that the term could also mean "established", and I don't see the word "rapporteur" anywhere as a definition for that word. As always with language, context is very important and I want to be accurate so we can decide if the coverage is sufficient. --Habst (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Join the lines together (removing extraneous carriage returns) as they are in the source, and DeepL will get it right too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, do you think you can help us request an Arabic speaker to look this over to settle the questions about the wording and notability? --Habst (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is unnecessary. مقرر in English orthography is muqarar. To understand its meaning here, it is necessary to notice that it is a noun. In Arabic, the prefix "Mu-" is added to a verb (which here is the verb "to confess", "to report") to make it a noun referring to the person or thing carrying out the action of the verb. Consider how we have the word "Muslim" being the person who carries out the action of submission/surrender [to God] - "Islam". There's something going on with vowels there too that we don't need to get into. But that is what we have here. The noun form of this word refers to the one doing the action of reporting or confession. Rapporteur is the correct translation. DeepL got it wrong for you because the sentences were chopped up by the OCR, and DeepL could not determine that it was a noun. Full disclosure: I only have A1 Arabic. However, I have studied how the language works, alongside other Semitic languages, one of which I know a little better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the prescriptive rules relating to this, but that's different than the descriptive meaning that words take on in usage generally understood better by native speakers. Taking it back to the notability of the subject, why do you think the coverage is primary and/or passing? More than any one word, I think a native speaker could assist more with that determination of the entire passage (including the quoted text omitted above and any followup). --Habst (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Per JoelleJay and also per the above discussion. I have also been able to review the Al Rai source now, and not only do I concur with JoelleJay's assessment of it, but the fact that we cannot even suppose this refers to the page subject both demonstrates that this is a primary source (in addition to it being passing, not SIGCOV), and also why we cannot use primary sources for notability. Placing in the article that he was the "grandfather of training" was an error of translation, but also of judgement. A primary source calling someone something cannot be used to make the assertion that someone is something in a tertiary encyclopaedic article. There are good reasons for that which are too extensive for this comment, but give it some thought and it should be clear why not. The sources we would need would be the secondary sources that discuss the subject and this role, showing what it actually means, and providing evidence, context and background. Those secondary sources would be synthesised by historians from primary sources, handled correctly. Wikipedia articles must not create their own synthesis, per our policy on original research. So, we have no secondary sources for this article. We cannot synthesise an article from primary sources. We cannot therefore write this article and it should be deleted, although the redirect is an appropriate WP:ATD. Should secondary treatments be found, the article could be rewritten from them. But again, sources must be secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay, just to be clear, do you believe that there are two different people who were both active at the same time in the middle east, both work in a niche area of track and field, and both have the name Abdul Aziz Abdul Karim Al-Hadba (or a slightly different order but the same name which is common amongst names from Olympedia), and that those are not the same person? Also per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, news reporting can be secondary and often is with analysis. --Habst (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But here it is primary. It is also a passing mention. It is out on both counts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it primary or a passing mention based on what you've seen? --Habst (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has part of one sentence of coverage on him, the rest of it is quotes from him as the rapporteur for training. That is a passing mention of him. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where the word "rapporteur" is coming from, can we request an Arabic-speaking Wikipedian to mediate? I understand that quotes aren't typically considered independent from the subject, but they can be notability-contributing if a major newspaper decided to publish them, then that's the newspaper making a judgement on the subject. --Habst (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotes do not contribute to GNG. We've been over this. Give it a rest. JoelleJay (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or Redirect - The issue here is that Habst hasn't actually added any reliable, independent notability-indicating sources, containing significant biographical information about the subject, to the article.. All of the sources added are just database-listings and passing mentions. None of the sources cited above for this person with a highly-generic name for a Kuwaiti fix this.
We're still just circling the same point that was already deprecated in 2022: just having been in the Olympics doesn't make you notable. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Park Wing

Chow Park Wing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, with only database sources in the article. All I could find about this Olympian through multiple searches was a article from historian Paul Tchir, noting that while Wing participated in the Olympics nothing else is currently known about him, with not even a date of birth available. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect‎ to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Weightlifting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Chu Kee

Aw Chu Kee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, with only database sources in the article. All I could find about this Olympian through multiple searches was a article from historian Paul Tchir, noting that the fact that Kee participated in the Olympics but very little is known about any other aspect of his life. A redirect to Burma at the 1956 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect‎ to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. is the consensus I see from the participants. I never want to discourage editors who are passionate about editing and a subject but it's unfortunate that we need to rehash old disputes years later. We need reliable sources to establish and verify notability. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buumba Halwand

Buumba Halwand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Sources 2-6 are all databases or results listing. The first book source is actually a small 1 line mention. No SIGCOV exists to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider my !vote if sources come up, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:NEXIST. I expanded the article with a few new WP:RS sources I found the day before it was nominated. Zambia is a notoriously difficult country to research, and there is broadly speaking a systemic bias against African countries and people that affects the level of coverage available to us. Subject was the top marathon runner from his country so coverage should exist in Zambian newspaper sources from the era as soon as they are available to us. --Habst (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. The article is already a stub anyway, and the subject performed at an international level (and top of his country) and covered in reliable sources. Although the coverage is not significant, pulled together, they demonstrate notability, and at the very least, passed our BASIC test. I do agree with Habst about getting sources for some African countries especially for the older generation whose achievements would have been covered in their local press but have not been digitized yet for the internet age, and only available in their local archives. I experienced a similar problem many years ago when researching a particular individual and had to make a personal visit to the local archive and the media house's archive. This is why I'm always more lenient when it concerns much older African figures because most of the local African coverage at the time have not been digitised yet. Some of these African media houses (especially older ones) are aware of this and are working to digitize them with the limited resources they have, but just not fast enough. I'm therefore more sympathetic to the older generation who contributed a lot but have not been recognised due to these technical issues. However, for younger African generation, I'm less lenient because they are part of the internet age and getting coverage shouldn't be difficult. Tamsier (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. It seems we are all agreed that there is insufficient sourcing to meet GNG/BASIC. Tamsier cites BASIC, but by saying the coverage is "not significant", it is evident that we do not, in fact, reach BASIC, which states it is met where the subject received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. What we have clearly falls short for several reasons. An IAR case is being made that sources may exist in undigitised newspaper archives. Setting aside that any such coverage may well be primary, and thus excluded from notability considerations, there is a question as to whether any credence be given to the possibility of such sourcing in establishing notability for article retention. I agree that non English sources, and African sources can be troublesome to locate, but the flaw in the IAR argument is this: if the sources are simply unavailable to any editor, then no editor can write this page. They cannot write it unless and until sources become available, and so we are in the same position as someone we think should be covered, but about whom no sources have yet been published. It does not improve the encyclopaedia to retain an unwritable sub-stub about someone who may or may not meet notability requirements. The Redirect ATD retains the page history, for whatever it's worth. Notability is not met, the artcle can't be written. Deletion is appropriate but a redirect ATD is a suitable alternative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I wrote never mind meant. Individual sources on their own may not be significant for notability, but combined together passes BASIC. In fact, that's what BASIC is mostly about. I didn't realise I have to explain that. However, if my initial statement was not clear enough, my apologies. I hope it's clearer now. Tamsier (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability - from WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an IAR case at all. Wikipedia P&G has always permitted articles to be kept so long as reliable sources indicate coverage existing. For example, it would always be permissible to keep if we had a source saying "He was covered in the 1 January 1900 New York Times front page" even if we don't have access to that article. In this case, instead of our RS saying that explicitly, they say it implicitly, by virtue of communicating his achievements at the Olympics. It's up to us to decide whether or not that indication is sufficient – and by virtue of looking at the European athletes finishing around him like Pat Hooper and Cor Vriend, which both have lots of available coverage, we can determine that a similar amount exists for Halwand but the only difference is the availability.
    One other note is that speaking of improving the encyclopedia, Wikipedians in Zambia would be the most likely ones to have access to be able to do that – and considering new Wikipedians in general are less likely to have accounts, it would be much easier for them to improve an existing article than to convert a redirect back to the article (interfaces like the app and mobile editor don't even allow you to do that). --Habst (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have been through this elsewhere. NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. But they must exist or the subject is not notable. Every Wikipedia page requires secondary sourcing for notability precisely because it is those sources that allow the page to be written. Because of NEXIST, we have some additional subject specific guidelines that allow us to assess whether sources are likely to exist. In this case the SNG is WP:NATH. If a subject meets an SNG, it is usually kept, even if we don't have all the necessary sources, based on the likelihood that sources exist. But here, the subject does not meet NATH. So we don't have the sources, and we don't have the presumption that sources are likely to exist that comes from the SNG. Making a case to keep this anyway says we should ignore GNG/BASIC and we should ignore the consensus of NATH. That is a WP:IAR case. And it is one I reject, because I don't see how maintaining unwritable machine generated and semi-plagiaristic stubs is good for the encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist. Absolutely agree. NEXIST has not been persuasive in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with that 100%. I think there is some miscommunication here, because the key part is that this AfD is not unevidenced, the evidence of achievements already exists and is verifiable in reliable sources cited in the article. This principle applies to all types of articles regardless of whether or not an SNG also exists. (Also, the overarching trend over the last few years on Wikipedia is against all subject-specific notability guidelines like NATH and WP:NSPORT in general and towards the general guidelines.) The argument is one founded in WP:N, I think that "ignoring a rule" would apply more accurately to the approach of ignoring WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Zero sources containing more than a trivial mention have been identified, and anyway global consensus is that athlete articles are required to cite sources of IRS SIGCOV to remain standalone. The subject's "evidence of achievements" was also explicitly deprecated as a notability rationale by global consensus, so there is no basis for presuming SIGCOV exists beyond ILIKEIT IAR. NEXIST does not operate as a notability criterion, it clearly does not override the requirement repeated numerous times even within the same section that existence of SIGCOV sourcing must be evidenced, and it even states its worthlessness once notability has been challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay Can you please link the consensus for this? As discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 16#Emil Kalous, WP:NSPORTS2022 shifts the burden of proof away from subject-specific notability guidelines like NSPORT and towards more subject-neutral guidelines like WP:N. I'm open to hearing other perspectives, but I don't see how NEXIST is affected by that at all. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORTS2022 does no such thing and it is absurd that you keep spouting that misinformed nonsense. I can't comprehend how you even get that reading given that most of the AfDs you personally have been involved in result in deletion specifically based on failing the NSPORT amendments introduced by that RfC. The policy proposals that achieved global consensus required all athlete bios to cite a SIGCOV IRS source; removed simple participation-based criteria from the sport-specific subguidelines, including merely competing at the Olympics; and downgraded meeting said subguidelines from a theoretically-rebuttable presumption of GNG to a rebuttable presumption that further SIGCOV exists if the initial SIGCOV citation condition is met. NSPORT has always required its subjects to meet GNG, and required this to be demonstrated via citations "eventually". For around half of all SNGs, notability ultimately is established through some approximation of GNG, not by meeting a non-coverage-based criterion; this doesn't mean we are "moving away from" SNGs.
    Notability guidelines are not only invoked in the context of AfD, they are also supposed to guide editors on which un-linked topics are likely to be worth spending time trying to create articles on, and they help NPP in quickly determining whether a valid claim to eligibility might exist that would help a new article avoid a CSD tag. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link the consensus that says "that athlete articles are required to cite sources of IRS SIGCOV to remain standalone"? I understand what you're saying about NSPORTS2022, but I don't see this on that decision or any other global consensus.
    I am also curious then, what would be an example of a valid application of NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article does not indicate that a subject is not notable" on a sports biography? If you think that NEXIST and WP:N is never applicable to any sports biographies, then why not write that into the guideline? --Habst (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5).
    NEXIST is supposed to encourage AfD noms and !voters to conduct some form of BEFORE rather than simply going off the sources already cited in the article. That's it. It's explicitly discouraged as a keep rationale once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NEXIST is supposed to encourage AfD noms ... to conduct some form of BEFORE rather than simply going off the sources already cited in the article – JoelleJay, the nomination is "Declined prod. Sources 2-6 are all databases or results listing. The first book source is actually a small 1 line mention." Isn't that simply going off the sources already cited in the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A key difference between that and the original proposal 5 was to not mandate SIGCOV cited from the onset, only at some point. There's no contradiction using NEXIST to add those sources eventually if we have reliable indicators they exist. --Habst (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid reading of the consensus, as explained to you by me, Cbl62, Sirfurboy, and numerous others, and as should be blindingly clear from the outcomes of like 3 dozen AfDs you've personally participated in.
    We also do not have any reliable indicators that sources exist. The subject's Olympics appearance explicitly cannot be used as an indication of sourcing existing, and even if he met NOLY he would still be required to have a SIGCOV source cited in the article. Almost a year ago both Liz and BusterD explained to you the requirement for specific sources to be identified, not handwaved as "sources must exist", so I don't understand why you decided on this ridiculous NEXIST pivot after your other arguments crashed out. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Habst endlessly recycles the NEXIST argument, I'm yet to see an admin close an athlete AfD on the basis of that when no actual in-depth sources are identified. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics: The WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC are not met here due to zero WP:SIGCOV being present in the article for this WP:BLP. As it stands, the only sources are databases. Multiple searches in GNewspapers/books/newspapers.com failed to turn up anything. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should sourcing emerge in the future Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The sources provided in the article do not help in establishing notability since they're either a database or don't provide significant coverage of the subject at hand. Searches performed on (but not limited to) Google ([18] [19]) or Newspapers.com ([20] [21]) didn't turn up any sources that would help establish notability. Even if we consider systemic bias, there still isn't coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – Per reasons above. Svartner (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Puerto Rico at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Aoidh (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Serrano

Víctor Serrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I reviewed the new references added by Habst and this user's attempts to bring athletes' articles up to notability standards are appreciated by the community. Unfortunately, I still feel the article falls a bit shot of the GNG threshold. Ref #2 is the only one that can be considered a borderline GNG pass (several sentences of independent coverage to supplement an interview), I reject JoelleJay's claim that this doesn't meet WP:RSPYT, which is an information page and not a guideline, and low number of subscribers Joelle brought up is not relevant. though the independent Youtube Channel may or may not be reliable. The remaining references are only trivial mentions or routine coverage, and #2 alone is not enough to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 14:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – Per Frank Anchor. Svartner (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I expanded the article with several new sources that clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV, especially when taken together with WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". With the new details I've found, I'm hoping more sources can be found as well as there are many different Víctor Serranos but you can narrow the search by specifying one of the details alongside the name. Pinging User:Frank Anchor and User:Svartner to take a look at the new sources. Subject was a Puerto Rican record-holder and Olympian with a long career throughout the 1970s and 1980s. --Habst (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me, keep per WP:HEY. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the excellent work done by Habst to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. @Svartner, have you looked at the sources added? #1, 5, 6, 12, 13. Databases or otherwise non-independent. Red XN. #2. Interview on a random YouTube channel with 400 subscribers and absolutely no evidence of meeting WP:RSPYT. All but 5 sentences in the article are sourced wholly to the athlete talking about himself in a clearly unreliable outlet. This absolutely fails independence and RS Red XN. #3. Diario La Nacion contains the sentence The delegation is headed by Jaime Laboy and the marathon runners are (list of names including Serrano). Obviously trivial mention Red XN. #4. El Tiempo contains his name in a list of results 7.—Victor Serrano, Puerto Rico. Trivial. Red XN. #7. Runner's World says 2. Sheldon Karlin (25, Wash. SC) 1:13:02; 3. Victor Serrano (23, Puerto Rico Nat. Team) 1:13:31; Trivial. Red XN. #8. Morning Press says Santiago will join DeJesus in the marathon this year, as will Victor Serrano. Trivial. Red XN. #9. Boston Globe has his name in its list of all 3,016 runners in the marathon. Trivial. Red XN. #9 and 10. The same article in The Plain Dealer, which has [1-sentence quote from Serrano], said Victor Sanchez Serrano, Inter-American's highest finisher at 20th place. Trivial. Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I greatly respect your contributions @JoelleJay, but I disagree with this source analysis.
    2. WP:RSPYT says nothing about the number of subscribers, I'm not sure why that's relevant here at all. It also doesn't say anything about "evidence" that needs to be presented, what type of evidence are you looking for? By the way, where possible I did not source claims to the athlete himself but instead to the interviewer anticipating this exact scenario. The YT interview is definitely not anonymous or unverified and not self-published either, because it's published by Leyendas del Fondismo – and there's definitely no copyright issues involved, so I'm not seeing the RSPYT issue.
    3, 4, 7, 8, 9. No objection per se, but using a Red XN icon here implies that these sources aren't suitable for inclusion, which isn't true at all. They're WP:RS sources which are fine to use if notability has already been established, and in fact can be used to help establish notability if combined as WP:BASIC allows for.
    10 and 11. (you wrote #9 and 10 but I think you meant this) – the articles actually spend a few sentences talking about Serrano in the context of his team. Just because Serrano isn't mentioned by name in every one of those sentences doesn't mean they aren't about him as well.
    What do you think? --Habst (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Habst, one can admire your tenacity here, but surely you see that arguments like and not self-published either, because it's published by Leyendas del Fondismo won't fly. A youtube channel by some guy who has 400 subscribers and a Facebook page, shot with a phone camera and published on Youtube as a hobby interest is the very definition of a self published source, even if he gives it a nice name. It's not the number of subscribers that is the matter, it is that this is not published by a publisher with professional editorial review. Arguments that sources like this should be accepted as reliable, in the teeth of WP:SPS, are not helping. That one is certainly out.
    Then, comments like, They're WP:RS sources which are fine to use if notability has already been established may well be correct - in that yes, you can use such sources in an article of a notable subject - but misses the point that what AfD is about is trying to establish notability. JoelleJay did not say you cannot use the sources at all. The point is that these do not meet the criteria for establishing notability (significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources). The red cross is just indicating that the source cannot be used to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the number of subscribers doesn't matter, why bring it up at all? Likewise with the phone camera, hobby interest, etc. We have no way of knowing if he does it for a hobby or if he's a full-time journalist working as a professional making these videos, and from a P&G perspective there's no distinction so I don't see what is the relevance of bringing this up. Many professional outlets use low-quality cameras or have low numbers of subscribers on YouTube. Without resorting to details like this, where is the evidence of any lack of editorial review?
    I agree mostly with your second paragraph, with the caveat that WP:BASIC allows us to combine sources to demonstrate notability even if one alone isn't significant ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") so they're still relevant in this discussion. I understand the point of AfDs and wanted to emphasize that fact, so a red cross isn't telling the entire picture (that they can still be combined). --Habst (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you can't believe the default assumption for an anonymous social media account is "reliable until proven otherwise". Policy states The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material [...] Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What counts as reliable sources are academic peer-reviewed publications, respected mainstream media, textbooks, books published by respected publishers, mainstream magazines, and reputable newspapers. "YouTube channel that is not a mainstream media outlet" is not on there; where it does appear is in our policy on non-reliable sources. There is no evidence of anything remotely approaching a "reputation" for this channel at all, let alone one for exquisite editorial review, while all the indications we do have—such as 400 subscribers, video quality, lack of any web presence whatsoever beyond YouTube and facebook—are that this is an amateur videoblog. Even if the channel creator is a professional journalist, the interview is still self-published and thus anything coming from the interviewer is prohibited from being cited in a BLP at all. Content fitting that description should be removed immediately.
    We have no way of knowing if he does it for a hobby or if he's a full-time journalist working as a professional making these videos. No shit. That is why it is unacceptable to use this source.
    from a P&G perspective there's no distinction so I don't see what is the relevance of bringing this up. What are you talking about?
    The only way a blog hosted by a legitimate newspaper can be usable as RS is if its writers are professionals. Why would we hold authors who aren't even publishing through a reliable outlet to a lower standard? In fact we have the higher standard of "established subject-matter expert" for SPS, and even then we are cautioned against using them.
    Trivial 👏 sources 👏 can 👏 not 👏 be 👏 combined! 👏 JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, the account isn't anonymous because it has a name, not sure where you are getting that from? It's published from an organization (Leyendas del Fondismo) and not an individual, but that doesn't mean it's anonymous. Number of followers is a poor way to gauge reputation in general, and the other indications you point out ("video quality", etc) are no better.
    "No shit. That is why it is unacceptable to use this source." – that's not what P&G says. There's no clearly defined distinction in P&G between "professional" and "amateur" w.r.t. notabiltiy-contributing sources, and in fact many times subject matter experts do their writing as a hobby or as amateurs, that doesn't make their work any less suitable.
    I have a very high standard for sourcing and have demonstrated that in my edits here just as you have, and I have an even higher standard for YouTube sources which this source passes. And yes, by a plain-faced reading of WP:BASIC if the coverage in any one source isn't substantial then it can be combined. --Habst (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Do you understand what "anonymous" means? Why would the consensus listed at RSPYT state Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. when every YT channel is "named"?
    @Frank Anchor User-generated content is not RS. We have zero evidence that this channel is the official account of a verified news organization, which is the only circumstance where a YouTube video is acceptable as a third-party source for a BLP. Who is the individual author of that YouTube video? What is the website of the "organization" from which this channel inherits reliability, who are its editors and where is its editorial policy, where does it publish corrections, what is its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? P&Gs state Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. So please tell me how the reliability of this source is even falsifiable let alone demonstrated.
    What part of

    Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages or columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

    and

    Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[1] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.


    makes you think policy does not require an SPS be by someone who has not only published work in the relevant field in reliable independent publications but has become established as an expert in the area? Not that it matters anyway given even experts cannot be cited on BLPs. And I don't know why you keep contextualizing this as "w.r.t. notability-contributing sources" since obviously non-RS can never, ever be used under any non-ABOUTSELF circumstance.
    Your sourcing standards have been rejected dozens of times at AfD alone. If you think not usually sufficient means that combining trivial coverage is routinely acceptable then I guess you just don't have the capacity to learn from your own experience. JoelleJay (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you just don't have the capacity to learn from your own experience. – Your repeated insults on Habst's intelligence are not appropriate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Take me to ANI, then. JoelleJay (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with everything Sirfurboy said, just wanted to add that They're WP:RS sources which [...] in fact can be used to help establish notability if combined as WP:BASIC allows for is false. BASIC states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability and Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Sources 3–11 are plainly trivial coverage and do not contribute to notability. 10 and 11 are different pages of the same source, and I don't know why you even included #11 since it doesn't mention Serrano at all. #10 contains strictly the sentence I quoted; the two other sentences remarking on the PR team in general are not direct coverage and do not count whatsoever (not that they would be SIGCOV anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "not usually sufficient" – Not usually, yes, but they can be combined to demonstrate notability in some cases, per WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Ref #11 is important because it says that the meet was the NCAA DIII XC championships, which wasn't clear from only the second-page coverage. And yes, of course the sentences about his team are direct coverage of him, because he was the leader of the team so of course those can be combined for notability. --Habst (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Are you seriously claiming that the second half of that quote is strictly a reference to the norms outside of BASIC, and so does not apply to the first half of the sentence regarding which sources can be "combined" for BASIC?? Do you realize how utterly moronic that interpretation is?
    Extrapolating coverage of a group to coverage of an individual member is exactly one of the issues the requirement of "direct" is supposed to prevent. WTF else would "indirect" even mean?! By this logic the Plain Dealer article would count towards notability for every single other athlete on the Inter-American team, and combined with their own scattered reports on trivial race results they would also each meet BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the second half of the sentence applies to the first half. That doesn't change the fact that the sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. In this case Serrano is the leader of the group, not just an "individual member", so the dynamics are a little different. As with most P&G, there's a question of degree that applies to "direct" versus "indirect" and in this case the coverage of the team applies directly to Serrano.
    As I've said to you many times lately, I have a lot of respect for your contributions and would appreciate being treated with the same good faith. --Habst (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does the Plain Dealer article state anything about Serrano being the "leader" of the group (having the highest placement does not mean he is the leader) and why would that make any difference whatsoever to the requirement that any given detail we are calling "coverage of the subject" objectively applies specifically to that subject? How would being the "leader" mean such group coverage only applies to him rather than to any of the other members? JoelleJay (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's the leader as the top finisher, plus I remember another source saying he was the team captain. The coverage doesn't have to only apply to a subject to still be directly about that subject. --Habst (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leader" is a meaningless distinction then and has no bearing on how coverage applies. I can't imagine what you think indirect coverage is if you think coverage of a group equates to individual coverage of its members. JoelleJay (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the terms we use here are important. Coverage being direct doesn't necessarily mean it's individual. In this case the coverage goes out of its way to specifically discuss Serrano in the context of the group, which it also discusses. (We also have individual coverage of Serrano from other sources as well which the article is mainly written from.) --Habst (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly does mean it is "individual", and the source doesn't "discuss" Serrano, it provides one sentence on him the majority of which is just a quote. The directory-like stats results sources are irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have non-statistical sources cited in the article, as well as sources that individually discuss Serrano. It's clearly enough to write a WP:BASIC-compliant article when combined as shown. Direct and individual don't mean the same thing, but the distinction here is moot anyways because we have coverage that is both from various sources already cited. --Habst (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the RS apart from the (still trivial) Plain Dealer one are either databases or have coverage that is functionally equivalent to a database (race results) and are unequivocally trivial. They do not fulfill BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above and per the source analysis by JoelleJay that demonstrates subject does not pass WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Puerto Rico at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Athletics: None of the sources added constitutes WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Malawi at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agripa Mwausegha

Agripa Mwausegha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong for this subject, with achievements going far beyond just "participation" but qualifying in four events across three different major international competitions. Malawi is a notoriously difficult country to research, and every single one of the newspapers in Malawi are all either not accessible at all, or do not have online archives going back to the 1980s when Mwausegha was most prominent. Should someone search even one of these daily papers in the 1980s and find nothing on Mwausegha, I would happily retract my !vote. But evidence from similar AfDs shows that Olympians of Mwausegha's caliber tend to have coverage available when we can actually access the relevant archives. --Habst (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Quispe

Crispin Quispe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with the rather weak reason "appears to be a famous person in his country." We need significant third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT which is lacking here. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect‎ to Central African Republic at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Nganaye

Brigitte Nganaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. All the sources provided are databases or results listings and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSBASIC. Keep voters should provide actual in-depth sources and not simply invoke NEXIST. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few details on this AfD that make this subject a better NEXIST candidate than most other athlete biographies. Subject qualified for the Olympics in two different events, and set three national records that still stand throughout her career. We have data from three different independently-compiled WP:RS describing a career over nine years, far longer than most other Olympians. And most importantly, the Central African Republic newspapers which would have covered the subject have not been checked because their archives are not available online:
  • Be Afrika: No online archive
  • Centrafrique Presse: Earliest online archive is from February 2008
  • Le Citoyen: Archive here only covers some months from 1999 and 2000, it's worth a look but is only available to CRL member institutions
  • Le Confident: No online archive
  • Le Democrate: No online archive found
  • E Le Songo: No online archive found
  • Echo de Centrafrique: No online archive found
Because the most likely avenues for coverage have not not been checked, there is a systemic bias against African countries, and the RS and WP:V info we do have is indicative of notability, a keep decision would be justified. --Habst (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Al-Rabeeah

Ibrahim Al-Rabeeah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. All sources are still just databases and insufficient for meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage found in Al Qabas, 6 August 1978 page 16: [24]. There is also coverage in Al Qabas 19 January 1985 edition page 10 though I am not sure if that one is a namesake. Subject was a 1976 Olympian from Kuwait where sourcing access is sparse, but I think that there's enough indication here to know that further coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 16 appears to be just adverts. Do you mean page 17? What have you found? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He's listed on page 16 (Arabic is read right to left), page 17 is the one with the adverts, next to pictures of athletics. I don't know enough Arabic to translate but I think surely due to the OCR issues we've discussed even one relevant match in the woefully incomplete archive.org collection is a very telling sign that there's good coverage out there. --Habst (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Arabic is read right to left, but in that case it is page 2. The Internet Archive numbers left to right and seems to reorder the pages thus, so the page is 17. No matter. I have also noticed a discrepancy in the Internet Archive numbering if you search for a word on a page. It seems to be off by one, so I expect that is where the confusion came in. I'll take a closer look at page 2/17 or whatever it is. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the article in question is titled "The national athletics team begins its camp today" and tells us "The national athletics team begins its training camp and leaves the country today for Al-Asab." The page subject is one of 22 names listed. This is a passing mention and not SIGCOV. We would expect he would show up in a few such listings but that does not speak to encyclopaedic notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still disagree about the paging, archive.org says "p16" when you search for the name. Before I found this match I wouldn't expect that Al-Rabeeah would show up in any such listings at all, given that I've searched for dozens of Middle Eastern historical athletes at AfD recently and most have little to no online presence. Given the OCR issues discussed in archive.org texts, I think that this one match is indicative of further coverage that we simply aren't equipped to find yet as non-Arabic speakers. --Habst (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that archive.org tells you it is 16 when you search text on the page. That is what I said about being off by one, and I really don't think it matters. We found the mention. But you see that ١٧ in the top left of the page? That is the number 17. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Another non notable mass produced stub created with no evidence of notability, and I cannot find any elsewhere. Does not meet WP:NATH. We don't need these stubs of every competitor, and no reason to believe that any in depth secondary coverage exists. Should be deleted, but redirecting is a suitable and cheap WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Athlete bios are required to cite SIGCOV sources, but only trivial coverage has been identified. We automatically dismiss names in rosters for every Latin-script athlete, the idea that such a mention is "indicative" of further coverage is laughable. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to meet the relevant notability guidelines due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SPORTSBASIC notes that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]", which just isn't the case here as all that is referenced here are database results. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should SIGCOV be unearthed in the future. Let'srun (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. We lack two things: (1) significant coverage (2) a strong indication of notability. Geschichte (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep‎. If editors want to continue to debate this, you can have a discussion on the article talk page about the possibility of a Redirection. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginaldo Ndong

Reginaldo Ndong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, 8 of the 9 are databases or results listing and not enough to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. The only third party source is this one and is a small mention and not SIGCOV, the source is about the more famous Mark Lewis-Francis. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have so much WP:V info about this subject from WP:RS documenting a career spanning more than six years, which is why I expanded the article to include some of that info I found. There is without a doubt more coverage in Equatoguinean sources, but the sad reality is the vast majority of those sources are only available in physical media for the time being. To prove this, I went through all the publications at List of newspapers in Equatorial Guinea and checked (keeping in mind the subject's career peaked around 2003 to 2008):
  • El Ebano: Archives only go back to August 2020
  • Ahora EG: Archives only go to March 2019 (click the "next" button until the end)
  • La Gaceta: Archives only go to February 2023
  • La Nacion: Could not find an online archive
  • La Opinion: Archives only go to September 2016
  • El Tiempo: Could not find an online archive
  • La Verdad: Archives only go to July 2014
  • La voz del pueblo: Could not find an online archive
  • Diario Rombe: Established in 2012
So, we don't have access to a single Equatoguinean newspaper from the subject's time period, when we know he was regarded as "the nation's best" according to American media. I am also convinced by User:Tamsier's argument in Special:Diff/1284809145 that there is a systemic bias against African countries broadly, and we should take that into account when evaluating the accessibility of sources. --Habst (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:NTRACK as the top Equatoguinean sprinter in the mid-2000s per this FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Proquest search only turns up the Sunday Telegraph source, on the page and also mentioned by FyzzyMagma. That one is interesting, even though it does not count towards notability. It is primary for the race and little - if anything - to write an article from. There are 43 words about the page subject. It is not SIGCOV, but it says, in full, it would have taken a career- best from Equitorial Guinea's Reginaldo Micha Ndong. "Reggie" clocked 11.47sec at the last World Championships when only 16. He is his country's finest but yesterday's 11.27sec was yards short of putting our Mark out of the afternoon. We need someone to be writing about the subject, not just mentioning that he ran in a race. Leaning delete here, but let's see if anything else can come to light. Also, is there a suitable redirect target? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on the rest, order of suitable redirect targets for Olympians should always be:
    1. <country> at the <year> Summer Olympics for one-time Olympians
    2. If not mentioned or country page does not exist, link to only Olympic event results article
    3. If multiple events / Olympics, pick the event results article the subject finished best at
    4. If finish is the same, pick the latest event
    So for this case it would be Equatorial Guinea at the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Habst (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'll keep looking a bit longer for sources before entering a !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From my experience in writing an article on a recent Equatoguinean Olympian, it appears that the country gives a good deal of coverage to their prominent athletes. In this case, he was known as "the best" in Equatorial Guinea per American British media. That the American British media somehow knows he was regarded as Number 1 in Equatorial Guinea indicates that there would be coverage in Equatorial Guinea of him. Remember that not one Equatoguinean newspaper has been searched, since no archives are accessible to us. Yet we still know that he was very accomplished in his country and regarded as the best. Further, the pretty decent expansion of the article arguably satisfies WP:NBASIC, which notes that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. However, I think this should also be an instance where WP:COMMONSENSE should be used and we should admit that the odds the number one athlete in a nation would not have coverage -- when we know they give decent coverage to their top athletes and nothing has been searched -- is so very slim that a strict application of the rules would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sunday Telegraph is British, not American. "He is his country's finest" implies that he was the runner with the fastest current times for his country at that point. It was speaking in the context of a single race and not necessarily as an all time great. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can someone be the "his country's finest" in only a single race? You can be a nation's "best performer", maybe, but I don't think that wording fits and I don't think that interpretation of the text is accurate. Considering the newspaper went into his race results from a year past, I think there is some more general proclamation being made here. --Habst (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said fastest current times (plural), leading to his selection to compete in that race. He is the country's finest because he is there. Nothing in that article, occasioned by a report of the British interest in it, can be used to infer that he was the finest ever for his country. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FuzzyMagma. Tamsier (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Equatorial Guinea at the 2008 Summer Olympics: Subject doesn't appear to currently have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The Sunday Telegram article is interesting, but doesn't have the needed depth at only two sentences to be SIGCOV. The remaining sources in the article appear to be databases and race results, neither of which contribute to notibility. While there may be offline coverage somewhere covering the subject, we can't keep any WP:BLP based on that possibility alone. Redirect as a WP:ATD with the page history preserved in the event better sourcing is found. Let'srun (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Equatorial Guinea at the 2008 Summer Olympics per Let'srun and the above conversation. I am not seeing a GNG pass here, but the ATD is very sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Kuwait at the 1984 Summer Olympics. If anyone would like to write a short bit about him there to prevent this from being RfD'd in the near future, that would be helpful. asilvering (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naji Mubarak

Naji Mubarak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The article is only based on databases and requires indepth third party sources to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I found a source I think is SIGCOV on the subject in Al Qabas, page 23 here: [25] Unfortunately the OCR is horrendous, but this is the translation of the first part of the article with DeepL proving it provides coverage on the subject: "2 Alah Shah 5 the athletics machine in the tournament and came asp the stakes which was established in 1913 160 Q 166 and also beat the Mexican injury winning mare Razza Aa Aa Dai Ci and is located at the center of the center of the r Aa Aa Aa 16-7 and Ali Al Anzushefi Akim defeat and against 7 wins in the race Der Baksar Baksar III in Azmi, Turkey for the third Madjaba Madad III. To diagnose and evaluate cases: Players to Topas 161-149. Two draws ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ games while China's Sa'abiya came second in the 11m hurdles (the height of the side of the physical therapy devices to advance), and Digiz had only a NEE Epsom ۔ ے Amir ے Ami ۔ ۔ ۔ ̓ ̓ in the 91cm hurdle). 0 team mare Heliette Nah in the gold medal race and Sasdol Naji Abdullah Mubarak in the bronze medal race. He had difficulty exchanging punches in the Yarmouk heptathlon here on Wednesday...." Given that it's an exact name match and talking about hurdles, it's definitely about the subject.
This paper is from 1980, which would mean the subject was only 16-17 when being written about by a major national paper here. We know from WP:RS that he continued to improve for at least four years following that (likely more considering we don't have good Arab Championships coverage) including a PB in 1983, which is far more than we know about most other Kuwaiti Olympians from the era. Due to the source and WP:NEXIST, I think a keep decision would be justified. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I'd bring up is, considering the poor OCR quality, how many hits in Al Qabas or other newspapers about the subject are we missing just because his name was transcribed by a computer incorrectly? Having an Arabic speaker to help search for variations or common scannos of the name would help a lot. --Habst (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that translation from? and based on what? Page 23 of that issue is not about athletics at all, although four youth athletes are mentioned on page 24, so I thought this might be the article you are looking at, but I cannot see anything there that would match the above translation. I downloaded the full OCR text for the issue here [26] but there is no mention of the page subject. No Mubarek. No Yarmouk. No Epsom or any of the other likely words there. The strangeness of the OCR would likely be caused by the lines of an adjacent article becoming mixed with the lines of this article, so it would be easy enough (or at least possible) to find and read the article correctly if we knew where it was, but it doesn't seem to be where you say. What I can say is that the youth report on page 24 falls in the realm of WP:YOUNGATH. It is also a news report of results, and so a primary source, and it is not SIGCOV. We need much better than this, and this is not really evidence of any significant coverage. To be clear, I can find coverage of this nature in old newspapers about me - and I am sure as heck not notable for my sporting prowess. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I found it. Naji Abdullah Mubarak gets 27 words in the second column of the report I was looking in (remember to read from the right), second bullet from the bottom. He was competing in heptathlon, his jump reached 91cm but then he ran into difficulties. As I thought , the above OCR mess is caused by running across the columns of the report, so it is mixing various reports together there. "Sasdol", for instance, is from the next column, so shouldn't be there. In any case, not SIGCOV, and a primary source regarding a youth event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
27 words, assuming your read of the Al Qabas paper is correct which we can't really verify as neither of us are Arabic speakers, is still pretty substantial in the context of the extremely sparse coverage of the Arab world that archive.org provides. --Habst (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Oprea

Laura Oprea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. All the articles I found on her where just a mention of her name. Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Păduraru

Maria Păduraru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 Navify‎. There is a consensus to turn this into a NAVPAGE. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Biniakounou

Armand Biniakounou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The added sources are not indepth. [30], [31] and [32] are merely small 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to navify, which was suggested as an WP:ATD by @Dclemens1971: on another AFD of a similar subject. Dclemens summarizes it well on that page, There's a new template ({{Navigation page}}) for an alternative to disambiguation/redirection that I think we could try here, particularly since there are multiple pages that discuss this athlete. It would serve the same function as a redirect but would provide more visibility for the page should future SIGCOV become available to support a standalone page that complies with WP:NSPORT. Sample:.

Wikipedia does not have an article on Armand Biniakounou, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:

  • Redirect to Republic of the Congo at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics: Subject does not appear to meet the relevant notability criteria due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV to be in the article, and currently none exist. What is in the article includes some database and match results (1-3), along with some passing mentions (4-6), none of which contribute to notability. Redirect, but do not merge, as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with a !redirect as suggested, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also okay with navifying this as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I have no doubt that he's notable. Athletes of his accomplishments for countries of this size get coverage. I've tried contacting the Congo news agency but they haven't responded (I've also contacted African news agencies in multiple other countries for similar AFDs, but none of them have responded either... ugh...). The best result, given that this is likely not going to be kept although it should be, would be to redirect it to one of the Congo Olympics pages with a note mentioning that he participated at another Olympics and the other details from this bio, such as how I did it for a similar subject here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A note that he participated in another Olympics is fine. Other details from his bio I don't think is warranted with the lack of secondary coverage, although that is a better discussion for the article talk page after a final target has been identified. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navify: as suggested by Frank above. Addresses the problem of multiple appropriate redirects and provide sufficient visibility to the page for future expansion should sources become available to warrant standalone coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep‎. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lebedeva

Julia Lebedeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "redirect" but was challenged, so I am relisting for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Romania at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Almer

Eugen Almer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The 2 third party sources added [37] and [38] are very small 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Romania at the 1972 Summer Olympics. The Mitteilungsblatt des Heimatverbandes Banater Berglanddeutscher is a newsletter of a German speaking community in a region of Romania, from which the page subject hails. Community newsletters like this are common in linguistic communities, and contain news and commentary in the manner of a newspaper, although they are community affairs, often with small teams and also often, these days, with support from EU funding. I am inclined to accept it as equivalent to a community newspaper. However there is, per nom., very little in these about the page subject. One calls him a 1970s top swimmer in an article about the history of swimming in Reșița although the artcle is really talking about the book, Cronica înotului sportiv res¸it¸ean, 1924 - 2004. Oameni, fapte întîmplǎri. It is a passing mention, and not clear whether they mean top swimmer in the city/region, or more probably, in Romania. The other article is a report of a meet up of swimmers from Reșița, and has a touch more. We learn that he trained for the Munich olympics under Prof. Hans Schuster and held a Balkan record for 1500m freestyle. This is not WP:SIGCOV. However, it confirms participation at Munich in 1972. A redirect is fine, but we simply do not have anything that shows significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. I did find a listing in a book that is not on the page, but again, it was just a listing. We have not met WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have access to Arcanum results? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The newspaper search list you have presented confuses the page subject with the apparently more notable 19th century eponymous publisher. If you believe any of those search hits show notability of this subject, let's discuss the sources and not lists of hits. Note that I already discovered much of the 19th century stuff by looking at a books search. [39] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't look like coverage of a publisher? sports masters EUGEN ALMER MIRCEA HOHOI and ILDIKÓ ZSIZSIK GROZAVESCU Masters of Sports Eugen Almer swimming Mircea Hohoi swimming and [...] the year 1972 in your life EUGEN ALMER For me the year 1972 means [...] to a more valuable performance EUGEN ALMER Born in 1953 Master / [...] over 400 m freestyle Eugen Almer received the Reschitza 200 trophy The same [...] over 400 m freestyle Eugen Almer also achieved over 400 m freestyle [...] / mSPORT Eugen Almer achieved three records in [...] behavior had a Reșițeanul Eugen Almer Although he did not occupy a / the Junior Swimming Championships, Eugen Almer and Karl Rolik achieved a state record [...] Eugen Almer and Karl Rolik were already in the lead after the starting shot. The [...] After 100 m, both Almer and Rolik had a time [...] new state record. The victory was awarded to Eugen Almer. The 200 m. That looks like coverage of our subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which comes from one source, not a search list. Can you provide the link please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Its at the very start of the search list. [40] BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, yes. I discounted that one as Almanahul Sportul means "sports almanac". It is a listing of data such as results. The biographical information it carries is solicited from the subject, probably via questionnaire. Note the wording in your preview "for me the year 1972 means..." Information is not independent, and is not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The title of the source doesn't matter. A media outlet can be titled "almanac" and can still have significant coverage. Getting quotes and/or information from the subject or closely-related people is a feature of sports journalism and does not automatically make sources non-independent and primary like your suggesting... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not the title alone. It is an almanac. For the subject's own provided information, see WP:IV: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The almanac is including information that is not quotes, and it is not solely an interview. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/above. GoldRomean (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate the effort made to find sources, but the coverage in them is simply not sufficient for me - it is rather telling that despite all this effort, the article is essentially still a prosified database. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Romania at the 1972 Summer Olympics Like others, I could not find the needed WP:SIGCOV for the WP:SPORTSCRIT to be met. The sports almanac is primarily stats-based info provided by the subject and as such isn't significant. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Saudi Arabia at the 1972 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra

Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The 2 added sources don't really contribute to notability. The arabnews story is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The Olympiads.sa source appears to be a primary source of the athlete's Olympic Federation. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1972 Summer Olympics per Let'srun. That is an acceptabe ATD as redirects are cheap. Database created Lugstub and we lack any sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Presumption of coverage based on appearing in the Olympics was explicitly deprecated in two separate global consensuses and therefore is an invalid !vote rationale. NEXIST is irrelevant. All that matters is IRS SIGCOV, which has not been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link the consensuses you're referencing? I think that WP:NSPORTS2022 actually helps the case for this article because by transitioning away from subject-specific guidelines like WP:SPORTCRIT, we can rely on more subject-neutral guidelines like WP:N and NEXIST that provide a clearer path to notability. --Habst (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained many times, the global VPP consensus in NSPORTS2022 was to require all athlete bios to cite a SIGCOV source in addition to meeting GNG, there is literally nothing in that RfC that suggests a "transition away from SNGs" and in fact the proposal to abolish NSPORT failed. There is a transition away from certain sport-specific subguideline criteria, but that is NOT all NSPORT is and claiming such is a ludicrous miscomprehension. JoelleJay (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link or quote the consensus that says "all athlete bios to cite a SIGCOV source"? I'm familiar with NSPORTS2022 and am wondering where that is coming from. I'm also curious, then, how NEXIST can be applied to any article appropriately under that requirement? --Habst (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you haven't actually read any of NSPORTS2022... Literally in the lead section of the close: Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5). JoelleJay (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I have read it several times. The part you quote says that this is different than the original proposal 5 in a key way, namely that the source isn't required "from inception" any more. I don't see how that invalidates an WP:NEXIST-based approach of adding these sources as they become available to us, if we're sure they exist. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You think the consensus at NSPORTS2022, and all the followup consensuses on rewriting NSPORT to comply with it, requiring that all sports biographies must cite a SIGCOV source to have any valid presumption that further GNG sourcing exists, actually just means "a SIGCOV source should in theory be citable but this doesn't need to ever happen, even in the context of notability challenge that this guideline criterion was specifically written for"...all because "from inception" was removed due to that wording raising issues with applying it to articles that had already been created?
    Can @Cbl62 please comment here...
    if we're sure they exist. Which we are not for this subject! Because NOLY2021orwhatever and NSPORTS2022 explicitly deprecated using these particular achievements as a rationale for presuming any coverage exists! You literally cannot claim to "be sure they exist" when no specific SIGCOV source has been identified, and you know this is true in practice because your inane NEXIST argument has an abysmal track record. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: The language of WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, couldn't be clearer: "All sports biographies ... must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." The proposal was presented specifically in response to the controversy over Lugnuts substubs sourced only to a comprehensive database. The article at issue here is one of the very Lugnuts substubs that generated the problem. Accordingly, the effort to argue that prong 5 should not or was not intended to apply to Lugnuts sports substubs is baseless and seeks to ignore both the clear language and drafting history of prong 5. Cbl62 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Cbl62. Hopefully having testimonial from the admin who created SPORTSCRIT 5 will help us avoid relitigating the exact same NEXIST argument in each of the dozen other AfDs it's being used in. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect largely per JoelleJay and LetsRun. No SIGCOV to meet the requirements of GNG. As always, a redirect does not preclude merging some of the content from this page to the target, ideally with discussion at the talk page of the target article.Frank Anchor 14:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. We lack two things: (1) significant coverage (2) a strong indication of notability. Geschichte (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:JoelleJay. WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, is clear that sports biographies must include at lease one piece of SIGCOV. This one fails to do so. Moreover, the subject's performance in the Olympics undercuts the contention that there "must be" coverage out there. In his heat, he finished in last place among those who finished the heat, and his time (4:14.5) was the second from worst among 66 athletes who completed the heats -- and some 38 seconds behind the winning time. I see no basis whatsoever for the argument that Saudi sources would have necessarily celebrated such a performance. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no basis whatsoever for the argument that Saudi sources would have necessarily celebrated such a performance. – I think its worth noting he was the joint-first athlete ever to compete for Saudi Arabia. Being the first Olympian in a nation's history is something likely to be celebrated regardless of performance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saudi Arabia actually had 10 athletes compete at the 1972 Olympics. See Saudi Arabia at the Olympics. Given Al-Safra's finishing in the bottom 1.5% of athletes in his event, I just don't see a substantial likelihood that the Saudi Arabian press would have paid particular attention to him as opposed to the other nine athletes who represented the kingdom. Morover, since SIGCOV hasn't yet been found, it can't remain in Main Space. A redirect preserves the history and attribution, and should SIGCOV be discovered at a later date, this can be restored without losing anything. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 no consensus‎. Pretty much per Sirfurboy, who has summed up the discussion well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Frieske

Reiner Frieske (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable German handball player. I was unable to find any in-depth sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. East German Handball Champion: He was a goalkeeper for the team that won the "DDR-Meister: (East German Championship) in 1964.
  2. International Handball Player: Frieske played for the East German national handball team.
  3. World Championship Appearances: He represented East Germany in the World Handball Championships in 1964, 1967, and 1970, with the team finishing 2nd place in 1970.
  4. Olympian: He competed as part of the East German handball team at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He played in 6 out of 6 games during the tournament. The team played in the bronze medal match, but was edged out by Romania (19-16), finishing in 4th place.
References that I found clicking Google News above were in German. — ERcheck (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Good work to those who identified sufficient WP:SIGCOV in this discussion for a bare pass of WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not going to enter a !vote because I don't think we are at GNG here, but I would prefer a no consensus close to deletion. The problem with the PDFs is what they are. Lommatszcher Nachtrigen is the independent gazette of the Lommatszcher Plege region of Saxony, and Lommatszcher Anzeige is likewise a regional publication. But that is not to say that local coverage is nothing. All the same, reading these, when they talk about "our team" and such like, there are questions as to whether this is properly independent coverage demonstrating notability. The other sources are either not SIGCOV or, as in the interview, lack independence (and also thus primary, per policy). And, to be honest, if we give this article a keep outcome, I'll bet that nothing happens to it, because it is not at all clear what we can write from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upon reviewing the sources cited, I think they are either connected/non-independent, primary, or not significant coverage of Mr. Frieske. They don't give us anything to work from. Notability not met. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 redirect‎ to Romania at the 1976 Summer Olympics. ✗plicit 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Avram

Elena Avram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 22:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Olympics&oldid=1285521050"