Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Matola

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. ✗plicit 00:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Matola

[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 with added sources only being databases. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 20 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 Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXISTS. If the subject was from an area where we have full digitized newspaper access via WP:LIBRARY and we still found no sources I would endorse deletion. But Matola is an Olympian from Malawi where we have no comprehensive online archive of coverage available. Maybe in five or ten years that will change and we can reopen the discussion.

And no, this rationale can't and shouldn't be used to blindly keep all articles from Malawi – the difference in this case is that we have verifiable information that the subject has accomplished something of note (being among Malawi's first Olympians), the only thing we're lacking is the prose-based coverage to add color. --Habst (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. This vote contains no evidence for how WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY is met. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar SPORTCRIT and NOLY are supplementary subject-specific guidelines, meaning that they don't have to be met at all as long as WP:N (meaning NEXISTS which is also on that page) is met. WP:N supersedes the topic-specific guidelines. --Habst (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEXISTS doesn't give a free pass to articles being kept when no reliable sources are provided. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEXIST isn't a free pass. In this case, there's a reasonable rationale for why sources exist given the verified information we have about the subject's accomplishments. --Habst (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for a free pass for someone that came 7th in a heat. You obviously searched for sources but couldn't find any. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for any free pass, that's not what NEXISTS is. I looked at what's available to me, but I have no way of searching the Malawian newspaper sources that we know would have covered this Olympic athlete in the 1970s. Do you have access to those? --Habst (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously searched for sources but couldn't find any. I will happily withdraw this nomination as keep if you can provide evidence of multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I provide evidence of sources if we have no access to archives that would have covered the subject? I'll happily change my !vote if you can provide evidence that you've searched a Malawian newspaper archive with coverage from this time period, and not found anything. The issue is those archives aren't accessible on the web. --Habst (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on keep voters to demonstrate existence of stories. I suggest you look harder. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you are saying and speculating is that he could have been covered in Malawian press with no evidence he was covered in a SIGCOV fashion. As an Olympic athlete, you'd might expect some international coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that as an Olympian we should expect international coverage to exist. Doing an offline search for this sort of info would take weeks and potentially real world money. An American athlete in a similar position would surely be covered because WP:Newspapers.com has great coverage of U.S. newspapers from the 70s. Where is the similar resource for Malawian newspapers? Until this question can be answered, invoking WP:NEXISTS for the prose-based coverage is valid as long as WP:V is met, which it is (everything on the page is currently cited to a reliable source). --Habst (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He came 84th place we generally don't keep articles for such a low place unless there is SIGCOV which you failed to provide. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, the place doesn't matter, see WP:DIDNOTWIN. What matters is if the general notability guideline, including NEXISTS, is met. But for the record, precedent has shown that top-90 Olympians are generally notable, see for example top 90 100m sprinters at the 2024, 2020, 2016, 2012, etc. Olympics. --Habst (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for 100m sprints but not other events. You still have failed to provide SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, "Maybe for 100m sprints but not other events" – The subject competed in the 100m sprint, so even if that was true it doesn't apply here. Per NEXISTS, SIGCOV isn't required to be cited in the article as long as we can be sure it exists elsewhere. --Habst (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said "NEXISTS argument is patently absurd". LibStar (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar As others have said, "Do you know what's actually "patently absurd"? Claiming that a nation would not cover their first-ever Olympian and probably most prominent athlete from the time." --Habst (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the sources? LibStar (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar The sources are in contemporary Malawian newspapers / radio / publications, from the 1970s. That's what NEXIST means. How can we get access to those archives? --Habst (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Malawian newspapers/radio/publications? Please specify date/name and page number of publication. For radio, please name station and time and date of program. Thanks LibStar (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It'd likely be The Daily Times, Malawi News, and perhaps Moni Magazine and This is Malawi, in 1972. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Month, day, page number? LibStar (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, ok then. Daily Times, 31 August 1972, p. 1, should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and what does this page say about this athlete? LibStar (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said it should be checked (since you preferred knowing the exact date of a paper that could of covered him...), not that I can tell you what the page says. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so how did you determine there is coverage on 31 August 1972 page 1? LibStar (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, how can you even talk about these matters without having access to the publication? The premise of your conversation isn't founded in policy; NEXIST isn't about pointing out a specific page number or timestamp, it's about knowing that coverage exists, and yes, using common sense is allowed in this process. --Habst (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you linked is an essay. The argument for keep is founded in WP:NEXIST, which is the notability guideline that is well-established by global consensus. There is a difference between these approaches. --Habst (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you respond to everything I saw but not JoelleJay's vote below. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop bludgeoning the discussion with silly bickering. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that applies to Habst, I legitimately ask for sources to support a keep vote. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Habst is at 12 replies, you're at 19. Both equal bludgeoning. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to establish notability + plus no medals to meet notability criteria for sport FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally no suitable sources have been identified, as required by global consensus. The NEXISTS argument is patently absurd, especially given the other recent global consensus that ruled merely competing at the Olympics does not establish even a presumption of SIGCOV existing. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the argument presented is absurd. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 11:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(notability rant) Ah, yes. The first Olympian in the history of an African nation, and almost certainly their top sprinter from the time. Has a single newspaper in the history of the nation been searched? Nope. Have any newspapers from his continent been searched? Also nope. Yet a number of users are claiming that saying he's probably notable is "patently absurd". Do you know what's actually "patently absurd"? Claiming that a nation would not cover their first-ever Olympian and probably most prominent athlete from the time. This is exactly why Wikipedia's sports notability guidelines are ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, articles should not be created until the significant coverage is on the table. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 27 February 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.