Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terap Adoum Yaya

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. With the target at issue, there is no viable ATD here. However if discussion coalesces around where best to mention him, I have no issue providing the history under a redirect. This does not require a relist to achieve Star Mississippi 14:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terap Adoum Yaya

[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 reason he meets WP:NATH by medalling in the Central African Championships which are a low tier championship. No in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 16 May 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) 15:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE, no reason to think a bronze at the sporadically-held Central African Athletics Championships would have attracted significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chad at the 1992 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD used in similar AfDs. Svartner (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPORTSCRIT requires at least one piece of significant coverage to be present in the article, and currently there aren't any here. The corresponding wikis don't give us much to work with here and I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~, subject lacks the requisite IRS SIGCOV for SPORTCRIT. Oppose merge; nothing worth merging, and anyway nontrivial biographical info unrelated to the target page is undue. @Let'srun @FOARP is there any reason to avoid a redirect here? Delete. Target indeed not clear. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the redirect being unclear. Why redirect to the 1992 Olympics and not the CAC page?

Agree that no merge is needed. Undue to mention the low-prominence medal on the Olympics page. FOARP (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not undue to give a very brief mention of the athlete's other important accomplishments on the page dedicated exactly to discussing him and about four other athletes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about Chad's performance at the 1992 Olympics, coverage should be about those competitions, not the competitors' results in other tournaments that editors scraped from databases and baselessly decided would have been covered in contemporary media. JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about the Chadian athletes at the 1992 Olympics, and there is nothing wrong with providing a brief background to those athletes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero indication that his performance at any other event would have been mentioned anywhere, let alone discussed in the context of that Olympics. You can't just assume a medal at one non-notable event an editor found in a database provides anything relevant whatsoever to his competing at the Olympics. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When editors take short "country at the Olympics" articles to GA, they provide some background details for the athletes in the articles. Providing brief background details here, such as medals at regionally important competitions, is relevant, and something that would be added if someone were trying to get the article to GA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nontrivial content that has no secondary coverage should not be added to pages about unrelated topics. If editors are taking articles to GA with primary-sourced material lacking any verifiable context with the topic then that is a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an entirely unrelated subject. The article is about Chad's athletes at the 1992 Olympics. Yaya is a Chadian athlete at the 1992 Olympics. There is nothing wrong with adding very brief background details. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about Chad's performance at the 1992 Olympics, not primary-sourced selection of one athlete's results at other events that we have no idea the relative importance of. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear redirect target here as FOARP has already articulated. Let'srun (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CAAC event is much more trivial, but if it's better to delete then we can do that. EDIT: Actually he is not mentioned in any other page AFAICT. The CAAC competitions do not have their own pages and his bronze finish is not mentioned on the main CAAC page. Never mind, now I see him at the 1996 Olympics, which confusingly comes after the 1995 CAAC but before the 1995 CAC... JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 1992 article, his best result, although I have zero doubt that he is notable and was covered in-depth in Chad. Noting that he was a medalist at important competitions such as the Central African Championships (arguably an NATH pass) is IMO warranted in a brief note at the 1992 Chad article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with any merging of unrelated content. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said at Asilvering's talk that something like [the note at Congo at the 1988 Olympics] could also note the other major events where the subject competed in that (or another) discipline, and the verifiability/UNDUE issues should, for the most part, be solved – how is that different? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note at one Olympics page that a competitor also competed at another Olympics is much more relevant than a note that they competed in a non-notable, much much less prestigious event. It would be fine to add a footnote that he was also at the 1996 Olympics, but that would be a trivial addition, not a merge. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a footnote like that would technically be a merge and not a trivial addition anyways, because the specific layout of which Olympic events, results, which legs the competitor ran, etc. would be significant enough to be considered a copyrightable contribution (or at least we could save ourselves the effort of rephrasing it all by simply merging). --Habst (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about a single sentence stating a competitor also competed at a different Olympics, with no other details. JoelleJay (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, then that wouldn't be adding the competitor's Olympic performance. I saw that User:Let'srun "thanked" my edit at Special:Diff/1291316477 which could be a compromise model going forward? Without adding the details, we're essentially saying that Chad at the 1992 Summer Olympics should be a problematic WP:PERMASTUB which is discouraged. --Habst (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not think that is an acceptable amount of information to be adding to that article, and it is much better to be a permastub than to violate our policy on primary sourcing and UNDUE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that permastubs in general are fine, but problematic permastubs are not. In this case which sources are primary, and which would be undue? --Habst (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source is a primary database. JoelleJay (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't see databases mentioned on WP:PRIMARY, so what criteria are you using to determine that they're primary, and which of those are undue? --Habst (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have been over this multiple times.
I said "primary database", not "all databases are primary". Not a single one of those sources provides thought and reflection based on primary sources. They are repositories of data with no human author, let alone interpretation, much like tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires and the experimental results discussed in research articles. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what makes database sources like WP:Tilastopaja or Athletics Podium primary? They aren't affiliated at all with the results they compile and sometimes they actually do include reflective prose in the Athletics Podium case. Both of them have human authors who are subject matter experts (Mirko Jalava for Tilastopaja, Şevket Furkan Erbay for AP) and unlike the questionnaires example, they aren't affiliated with the original timekeepers or meets they report on. Most importantly, citations in an article don't need to be GNG-contributing to be be used for supporting content like a footnote.

I'm just curious about any P&G-based rationale that could be used to argue against including these sources in an article like Congo at the 1988 Summer Olympics. UNDUE seems like a promising way to do that, but I haven't seen that argument actually fleshed out anywhere. --Habst (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Do you understand how these relational databases work? The particular entries in question are not individually "authored" by anyone, they are strictly a collection of structured fields that are updated in bulk from the primary official competition results (usually also containing structured data and metadata) that the site auto-imports or scrapes from federation pages via APIs. The only manual input would be in correcting data validation issues or resolving other error reports. There is no secondary evaluation by a human, let alone anything published; any transformation of the primary data is trivial, akin to just formatting. The independence of the information is irrelevant to primariness, but in these cases it is also non-independent as it is coming directly from official sites.
This extra info on athletes further fails BALASP as it is not proportional to the weight given to that info in published sources on the article topic. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. In this case random other events athletes participated in can't even count as isolated events ... or news reports related to one subject because the "one subject" isn't the article topic in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand how relational databases work and have even created several of them. I have great respect for your work and I don't understand why this personal comment is necessary.

Re: Authorship, that isn't true. For example see entries like Virgilijus Alekna at Athletics Podium [d] that have prose-based biographies attached. All AP and Tilastopaja entries are authored by an individual (Jalava and Erbay mentioned above) who is a subject-matter expert; they are not merely uploaded from competition results and as proof of this you can find many Athletics Podium entries who appear e.g. in their national championships results but who were not determined notable enough to get their own profile page. If an athlete has a page on AP, that means a human (and not just any human but an SME) determined that they were notable enough to have one and that person is discerning in making that choice.

"Republic of the Congo at the 1988 Summer Olympics" is a list article, so different rules apply. Wikipedia does often host novel categorizations that aren't really covered elsewhere accepted per WP:NLIST, so the concept of "published sources on the article topic" doesn't really apply in this instance because there may not be any. Yaya was 1/7th of the Congolese squad and his achievements were about equal to the other six members, so it makes sense that information should be available about him in an equal amount to the others. In this case some of the others have articles, so it makes sense to add footnotes for those that don't. --Habst (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are talking about the references for this article, not for Virgilijus Alekna.
There is zero proof that each article is "authored" individually, and indeed I am 100% confident that this is not the case as it would be insane to manually enter and update each of the tens of thousands of entries rather than extracting the structured data already contained in official records via a parser like every other sports database does. In fact you can even check the devtools network tab Fetch/XHR requests and see that the sections are being loaded modularly with different creation dates for each: Adoum (#65615)'s bio section details were created 2022-04-29 at 17:32:20 (43 seconds before #65616's bio section details were created), while Adom's section listing his CAC 1996 medal was created 2022-04-29 17:54:55, the exact same time as that section's creation for #65616. The section for the 1995 CAC medal was created 2022-04-30 09:20:27. This means event results are being imported in bulk and automatically populating the pages for competitors.
But even if it was manually created, this is clearly not published secondary discussion of data, it is pure results. The fact that Adoum appears in AP has no bearing on his notability and is obviously not "coverage".
The redirect target is not automatically a notability-exempt "list article" just because its content is a couple anemic tables and no prose. And anyway list articles are still subject to the same content policy requirements as regular articles, you don't get to suspend NPOV and OR simply because the article is poor quality. Info on each competitor's non-Olympics background should reflect its secondary coverage in the context of the Olympics, not arbitrarily sampled from primary database entries. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is proof that the articles are authored individually: Look at 2024 Namibian Nationals results, you see how most athletes do not have a linked bio but some (e.g. Ryan Williams) do? That's because there is discretion involved and not every athlete listed in imported results has a biography like Williams and Yaya do.

A 43 second gap between creations is further proof of this, because if they were only created from a script they would have been created instantly one after the other.

How would including relevant details cited to RS to improve an article you admit is of poor quality be violating NPOV or OR? And why are these database entries primary? --Habst (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not "proof" of individual profile creation, it is evidence that their parser doesn't handle input in the name field correctly if it is accompanied by "(')", or that an article isn't made immediately for every athlete who has only participated in one (or solely that particular) indexed event (this is common in databases, for example Scopus does not autocreate an author profile until two separate papers can be attached to that name). And "discretion" in which trivial primary event data get attached to full profiles is also not published secondary coverage anyway, that is ridiculous.
Meanwhile, the fact that each page is a JS rendering of identical JSON parameters (so, the entire page including all athlete data exists as code meant to be read by the browser rather than a text-based HTML webpage for humans), corresponding to sections that are accessed through separate API endpoints, with these sections created at different times within one profile but at exactly the same time for endpoints shared between entries, e.g. all medalists at CAC 1996, is absolute proof that the profile was compiled piecemeal with each import of event results triggering automatic, bulk updates with that event propagating across all participant profiles. The gap between profile creations does not necessarily mean 43 seconds were spent creating the first profile; more than likely the parser is sequentially iterating over some import batch and either updating or creating each profile, and there were 43 seconds between names that needed new entries.
And anyway, you seriously think someone spending 43 seconds looking at primary results and manually filling in three fields in a code block with "Chad", "Oct 10, 1974", and "Terap Adoum Yaya" constitutes published secondary evaluation? Yet a journal publishing a research paper containing prose contextualization of data is explicitly not enough to transform that info into (non-independent) secondary coverage...?
These are not relevant details. They have nothing to do with Chad's performance at that Olympics and it is pure SYNTH to suggest these other random events have any importance in relation to the page topic or even to the athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: Just to be clear, I "thanked" your edit based on you working in good faith. I still share some of the same concerns JoelleJay has noted here. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 23 May 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.