Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toyi Simklina

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 Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toyi Simklina

[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. 4 of the 5 sources are just databases. This source is just a 1 line mention. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 5 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) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. I was able to significantly expand the article with WP:V information, and what makes this sportsperson article unique is that we do have data showing this person had a career spanning at least nine years, unusually long for someone without SIGCOV. The newspaper archives in Togo would have covered this athlete in greater detail. --Habst (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a career for at least 9 years does not guarantee notability. What guarantees notability is existence of actual third party in-depth sources which is lacking here. Recycling the NEXIST argument doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, what do you think about the merits of the NEXIST argument in this case specifically? I think it's guaranteed that this athlete would have been covered in Togolese media, but those archives aren't online which makes invoking NEXIST necessary. --Habst (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As many closing admins in these athlete AfDs have disregarded NEXIST. I support that position. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because some of these AFDs have been closed as delete doesn't mean that its always invalid; other admins have agreed it is valid, e.g. you're right that N:EXIST is the basis for an argument to keep. It wouldn't be part of Wikipedia policy if it was never usable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide 5 examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept on the basis of NEXIST and no sources identified? LibStar (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are over 1,000 examples of all article types that were kept when NEXIST was used as an argument, you can find them with this regex here: regex results Some of those are for sportspeople, but whether they are for any specific subject type makes no difference on the substance. Take a look through the first two pages of that search result and pick whichever ones you like. --Habst (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I'll add is that finding cases where "no sources (were) identified" wouldn't be analogous to this AfD, because in this case we actually do have four different WP:RS sources describing the subject linked in the article. --Habst (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me actual 5 examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified, not search results. Going on the first few AfDs in that search result, actual sources were identified during the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have actual sources in this AfD too (four of them cited in the article), so that would make this case analogous to those which were closed as keep. NEXIST is a broadly accepted guideline that's been in place for years and of course there have been many articles kept on that basis even without notability-indicating sourcing in the article, including some in the above list. --Habst (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple request really: Give me actual 5 examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified, not search results. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 1,000 examples across all article types linked above. If you are interested in finding anything more specific than that, why not find them yourself or relate that to this AfD in some way? --Habst (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm looking for specific examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified. The fact you can't supply examples is telling. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is it telling of? There haven't been no sources identified in this AfD, there are a few WP:RS cited in the article. I'm asking genuinely because I respect your contributions an dwant to understand where you are coming from. --Habst (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simple request really: Give me actual 5 examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified, not search results. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that neither you nor Beaniefan can supply examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified despite repeated requests, means no such AfDs exist. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, I gave a link with over 1,000 example analogous to this one, where sources were sometimes identified and sometimes not but NEXIST was used as justification to keep. I'm trying to satisfy your request but I need more clarification on what exactly you are looking for. Can you give one example and I can find four more like that? --Habst (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a search listing. The first few search results are not athlete AfDs and also sources were identified. I'm specifically looking for athlete AfDs with no sources identified and the AfD was kept. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, how is that relevant to this AfD at all then considering sources were identified after this article was PRODed? --Habst (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
now you're avoiding the question. I will conclude no athlete AfDs have been closed as keep when NEXIST is invoked and no sources identified. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet the notability guidelines. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage in the article, and currently there is zero. We also can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the keep arguments don't hold water whatsoever. Please stop talking about someone browsing through national archives in dozens of countries, something that is obviouly not going to happen. Furthermore this was not an accomplished athlete considering his lifetime best. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop talking about someone browsing through national archives in dozens of countries, something that is obviouly not going to happen. – Even if its unlikely to happen, it still should be done. Honestly, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are completely broken when we're getting rid of all-time greats in under-developed nations simply because no one feels like checking relevant archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Like the article creator? WP:BLP's require strong secondary sourcing, which this article currently doesn't have. A redirect also preserves the page history in the event WP:SIGCOV can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed with Let'srun. Also if you think Wikipedia is broken, you can always start your own online encyclopaedia of "all time great" athletes. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The solution is correcting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not starting a separate site. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the forum for "correcting" guidelines, use village pump. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the forum for correctly applying guidelines that already exist, though. WP:NEXIST, if applied correctly to this discussion, could result in a keep decision without "correcting" any guidelines. --Habst (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one else is supporting keep here. Simply recycling the NEXIST argument doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one keep vote doesn't mean that that vote's arguments are invalid; if NEXIST was unable to be used in AFDs, then it wouldn't be included on the notability page in the first place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And can you provide examples where an athlete article with no sources identified has been kept on the basis of NEXIST? LibStar (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS. The sole keep vote here does not reflect consensus. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean its invalid. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't accept WP:CONSENSUS? There may be other online encyclopaedias where "great" athletes get an article, or perhaps you can start one, Habst can join you. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NEXIST has community consensus. Just because two more people support doing a redirect versus keep doesn't mean the keep is entirely invalid. And comments trying to drive me and Habst off the site are unhelpful. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are both welcome to stay but you both seem frustrated with the notability guidelines and the expectation that sources (on or offline) be provided. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And can you provide examples where an athlete article with no sources identified has been kept on the basis of NEXIST? You avoided this question. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are over 1,000 examples in my comment here. I'm not personally frustrated with the notability guidelines, because I think a straightforward reading of NEXIST would indicate keeping an article like this. --Habst (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple request really: Give me actual 5 examples of athlete AfDs that have been kept and no sources identified, not search results. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are over 1,000 examples across all article types linked above, plus there haven't been "no sources identified" in this AfD... --Habst (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And some athlete examples from those "over 1000 articles". You seem to avoid giving me specific examples of athlete AfDs that were kept based on NEXIST and no indepth source identified. Why do you find it so hard? LibStar (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this as an example, so we can end this petty, off-topic argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not petty at all, it is critical to the value of NEXIST. Thats one example I asked for 5. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a waste of time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather you can't find 5 actual examples. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a waste of time trying to find how successful the magical NEXIST is in keeping athlete AfDs. The majority have not been kept despite the recycling of NEXIST like some free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics: could not find sources beyond databases although I was confused reading the sentences constructed from these databases. I appreciate the argument to maintain knowledge but that is neither here or there. It should be the other way around. Find sources then write the article, not the other way around or act as Wikipedia is the place for original work. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Does not meet GNG. Sources are lacking. The NEXIST argument is spurious as it ignores the wording of NEXIST. Multiple editors have searched for sources and there is no evidence that any other sources may be found. Hand wave arguments that perhaps sources may exist somewhere and so we should keep an article are what should not exist. Sources are required to write an article and if no sources can be found at AfD then the article should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the NEXIST argument has been waved repeatedly in these athlete AfDs and had no impact on keeping any of these articles. It's getting tiresome. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually had a pretty substantial effect as over a half dozen articles recently nominated have been kept using that argument, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Athletics/Article_alerts/Archive_3. --Habst (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clear lack of sufficient sourcing, NEXIST has no bearing on this apart from the statement that it is a poor argument once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 15:20, 10 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.