Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awadh Al-Sameer

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 Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. Star Mississippi 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awadh Al-Sameer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. 3 sources were added. 2 are from Oman Olympic Committee which would be a primary source. The sole third party source added is [1] which appears to be just a competitor listing. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Oman. LibStar (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NEXIST, with a possibility for procedural keep. Context for procedural keep: Over 80 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors from non-English-speaking countries) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, all of which aren't in English and most of which are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national newspaper archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures notoriously difficult to research sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: Omani newspapers from the 1980s haven't been found yet, we would expect coverage because Al-Sameer was a two-time Olympian for Oman, and the first ever Omani Olympic marathoner for the country's Olympic debut in 1984.

The simple fact is that Awadh Al-Sameer is no less notable than (for example) Chae Hong-nak or Adalberto García. The only difference is the online availability of newspaper coverage from the region at the time. Just because sources aren't on the Internet doesn't mean the article should be deleted, per WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor stated "NEXIST does not exempt subjects from the requirement that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". LibStar (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which editor stated that? The evidence that a source has received SIGCOV can in rare cases be his achievements, which is the rationale I'm using here. --Habst (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farouk Ahmed Sayed. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with most of that comment, but it doesn't contradict the NEXIST rationale. NEXIST actually supersedes NSPORT, and has more well-established global consensus. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As as admin said "Invoking N:EXIST without some evidence that sourcing has been (potentially) identified is not a path to a Keep". LibStar (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referencing, but WP:NEXIST has no such constraint. If you don't think the article should be kept, then you should try to dispute the NEXIST rationale. --Habst (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should not be kept because there is a lack of indepth reliable sources. Your NEXIST free pass argument has been questioned and disregarded several times. I'm yet to see a closing admin give a keep decision based on it. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm yet to see a closing admin give a keep decision based on it." -- here's a list of hundreds of times WP:NEXIST has been used in keep decisions: [2] NEXIST has always had broad community consensus, and while you're free to dispute any individual invocation the principle has always been a valid one. --Habst (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon as a valid ATD for participants at an Olympic Games. --Enos733 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT – The subject lacks significant coverage in secondary sources that would make them notable. WP:NEXIST states that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. However a search turns up no sources that would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT (including the sources already provided in the article), with no sources being presented in this AfD that would support the subject's notability. Per WP:NEXIST, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:05, 14 March 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.