Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sportspeople. 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 {{Gpedia: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|Sportspeople|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sportspeople.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

See also: sports-related deletions, people for deletion


Sportspeople

Michael Ninomiya

Michael Ninomiya (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:BLPCRIME. An article solely created because the person is alleged (not convicted) to have attempted to murder his son (not actually murder him, as the article claims). Fram (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Narcis Tacau

Narcis Tacau (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This article was discussed at WP:BLPN#Narcis Tacau. The subject appears to lack independent notability and the article attracts WP:BLPCRIME issues. It's been stubbed; in its prior state, it was borderline eligible for G10 and indeed G10-tagged by Netherzone (the tag was removed by Liz, who took the article to BLPN). Consensus on that noticeboard, which I concur with, is that the article is not appropriate for inclusion in Gpedia. Vaticidalprophet 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ismael Gonzalez (fighter)

Ismael Gonzalez (fighter) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:MMABIO notability criteria, he doesn't have any fights in a top tier promotion nor has he been ranked inside the world top 10 of his division by FightMatrix or Sherdog. WP:GNG is also failed, appearing on Bellator's short lived FightMaster isn't nearly enough to be considered significant coverage. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 11:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Hall (racing driver)

Eddie Hall (racing driver) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

De-PRODed without explanation. Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP from independent reliable sources. Article does nothing to establish significance or notability. WP:BEFORE searches only return information about the strongman (who seems to be the primary topic for the article title) or about Edward Ramsden Hall. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Can you link to the two sources? At the moment I'd vote delete but I want to see what you've found first. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is correct they are the newspaper sources already listed (that and a similar article in the Gazette). I've added more sources relating to his books as there seems to be more details on him in the British Library and on Amazon FactFinderGeneral 14:57, 27 January 2022 (GMT)
  • So far as I can see they are two identical four-sentence-long articles which consist of very little more than "local man has book published" with a brief description of who he is. Even if this were considered more than WP:ROUTINE coverage they would only count as one source and they wouldn't establish him as being notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing else seems to be independent of the subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's fine, you guys have much better knowledge of Gpedia policies than me. As an impartial contributor I just think it would be a shame to see a 15 year old wiki article removed based on the individual no longer being viewed as notable enough, hence my position on Keep FactFinderGeneral 09:12, 28 January 2022 (GMT)
  • The length of time the article has existed for does not come into consideration of whether it should exist (see discussion at WP:OLDARTICLE). The article has not proved its notability to begin with, so it should not have been included to begin with. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – No claim to significance and unable to meet the GNG with the few sources available, which in my opinion are of questionable quality. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Aisen Ishak

Aisen Ishak (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Aarne Kallberg

Aarne Kallberg (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, with the English, Norwegian, and Swedish Gpedia's all lacking this coverage. Further, a WP:BEFORE search found nothing.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Olympia and sports reference are both the hyper comprehensive type of sources that do not add up to acceptable coverage according to the inclusion criteria for sportspeople. Non-medalers at the Olympics are not default notable, and other than that we do not have any sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral I found two book sources verifying that Kallberg competed but did not finish. It's a pity the Gpedia article on Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon is so poorly sourced. Deb (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the Finnish National Library's newspaper archive [1], there's a not-insignificant amount of hits, but they all seem to be relatively passing coverage, mentioning him as a participant in one competition or another. As an aside, there seems to be a surprisingly large amount of advertisements for sports events, where the event organizers have considered him sufficiently notable to use the name as a marketing tool ("Come view our event, participants include X, Y and Aarne Kallberg!"). I don't think that affects Gpedia notability, but I found it interesting none-the-less. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Lugnuts. Seems to be a reasonable solution to preserve what information is here without a separate article. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Lugnuts. Important we don't haemorrhage information, but I agree this subject doesn't merit a stand alone article. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hannu Vuorinen

Hannu Vuorinen (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No indication of notability, google search didn't turn up anything. Not presumed to be notable under WP:NOLYMPICS, either. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of coverage of him following his death [2], [3], [4]. Don't know if he meets WP:NBOX, but he did fight as professional (according to BoxRec). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep represented his country and competed in the Olympics. No debate. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    Donniediamond Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924) e.g. Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Laurentia Tan (WP:NOLYMPICS) -- just participating is not enough for notability purposes. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 13:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
However, Vuorinen would have needed to win their National title to qualify for the Olympics, which indeed he did in 1983. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The RfC said non-medalists at the Olympics are not notable. Keep votes that ignore this rule should be ignored. The additional coverage is not in-depth enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    From WP:NSPORT: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    The RfC said non-medalists at the Olympics are not notable Stop perpetuating this incorrectly. The RFC says they aren't presumed notable, but they can pass GNG. Asserting outright that people without medals are not notable is incorrect. Especially when it seems you never bother to WP:BEFORE before commenting. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment the RfC may have changed NOLY but he still passes NBOX. To quality for the 1984 Olympics a boxer must have won their national championships. This boxer won the 1983 and 1984 National title and therefore passes NBOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The first and second source provided by Lugnuts might be significant coverage, but they are identical, so even if they are significant we still need two more sources. The third source is both not significant and not reliable, being a single sentence on a boxing clubs website. WP:NOLYMPICS only presumes notability if the individual medalled, and WP:NBOX doesn't presume notability for winning a national title. BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment that is incorrect, the does pass NBOX one of the criteria is to "have fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an AIBA affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal-winning country (for Men, see Medal table (1974–present)".
Not only did Vuorinen compete in the a final he won it two years in a row - 1983 and 1984. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)--Donniediamond (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Donniediamond NBOX does not supersede GNG. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that he was a professional boxer, I assumed that the Finnish Lightweight Championship were not an amateur championship. However, even if it was amateur, WP:NBOX only creates a presumption of notability; WP:GNG still needs to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment he was both an amateur boxer and a professional boxer. Although more noted for his wins in the amateur code. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, can't read Finnish but willing to AGF its SIGCOV. Plus if he passes NBOX (failing another SNG is irrelevant) more coverage likely exists in his home country (anybody know of a Finnish newspaper archive?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like Finnish sources exist, including some offline ones, there are some more sources at the Finnish article. A WP:BEFORE doesn't look to have been done, and we shouldn't only be looking for English sources to claim "non-notability". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    The helsingtarmo.fi source is a passing mention, Ilt a sanomat is a large Finnish digital newspaper but I don't know how much their obituaries indicate notability so let's assume they do, and the offline source (Defenders of Our Sports Honors - Representatives of the Finnish Olympics 1906–2000 , p. 363) seems like a passing mention in a book about all Finnish Olympians, while the rest are sports databases. That means in the Finnish article there is one notable obituary and a single page of a book about Olympians, which to me doesn't seem to indicate notability. I'm willing to assume there might be Finnish sources that I'm unaware of and not in the fi.wp article, but it's also important to note that Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage (from WP:NSPORTS) as well. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I know, but you've asserted no sources exist in your AFD nomination, and that's been proven incorrect, as some exist. If someone had access to a Finnish language newspaper archive, seems likely there would be more sources, but you shouldn't be expecting English speakers to know and have access to these sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I asserted that I myself didn't find any sources that indicated notability. That's different from saying no sources exist. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 12:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems quite adequate. Deb (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. His professional career was unremarkable, but his amateur achievements justify inclusion I think. There are further sources available, e.g. [5] - a newspaper source for his olympic result if we want to avoid using stats sites, and [6] - confirms his gold in the Tammer tournament in 1982. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sufficiently well versed with how WP:NSPORTS is usually interpreted, and thus refrain from !voting, but here are a few more Finnish-language online refs: Obituary in MTV uutiset, Obituary in Turun Sanomat, Obituary in Iltalehti (nb: different paper than Ilta Sanomat). Given that these are all very similar in content, I assume the obituary was published originally by the Finnish news wire, Finnish News Agency. I suspect there are other newspaper articles about the subject too, but access to newspaper archives from approx 1950s to early 2000s is tricky, as those papers are not yet accessible via e.g. the national archive's online search, and online news weren't common either. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Ljleppan thanks for finding those sources. Is there some wiki guideline on obituaries? At least in my city obituaries come out relatively frequently for people of not much notability, but I know things like NYT obituaries are good at establishing notability. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 10:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of any specific guidance on obituaries, but I think this part from a WP:SIGCOV footnote is relevant: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.". If most of these obituaries are based on the same basic news wire text, I'd be hesitant to count them as separate sources for the purposes of SIGCOV. On the other hand, clearly there's a difference between a case where a single local newspaper publishes an obituary, and a case where the national news wire publishes an obituary that is then republished by multiple national newspapers. It's unfortunate that I don't have access to the Helsingin Sanomat news story or to the book Urheilukunniamme puolustajat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000 (which is used as a ref in fi.wp) to figure out what the depth of that coverage is. To be quite honest, I don't know how to best interpret this. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I seem to have missed a part of your question: these do not appear to be obituaries of the type submitted by e.g. the family (those would called kuolinilmoitus in Finnish, there's a separate section for these in the newspaper, and they are not usually published online). The linked texts are obituaries in the sense of "a news story, under editorial control of the newspaper, written by journalists, where the main news is that someone died." -Ljleppan (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, but sometimes there are obituaries in newspapers that are only published in one city or sub-province, (e.g.Deia (newspaper)) A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed that those types of obituaries are significantly less persuasive. The ones I linked are rather large by Finnish standards, with at least some being "national" level newspapers. And the original wire (which I'm assuming they are based on) would also be a national thing (perhaps even "Nordic", depending on whether the wire service was also serving Sweden at the time). So on their face, they would appear to be good indicia of notability. But then we get to the point where this appears to be a case of multiple newspapers publishing the same wire story, rather than intellectually separate works. Given that, I'd say the obituaries taken together really count as only one "publication" for WP:GNG purposes. That leaves us in the tricky situation of one good ref (the obits) and two potential references I don't have access to (the book used in fi.wp and the Helsingin Sanomat news story. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Ljleppan: You can log in to hs.fi and access that article with the username (1926@mailinator.com) and the password (8ugmenot). JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. For the benefit of those not speaking Finnish, the Helsingin Sanomat article is kind of a double-bio of Hannu and his brother. I'd say it counts for SIGCOV purposes, given it's 14 paras and 400+ words in what I believe is the largest newspaper in Finland. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sure. In that case we'd have the hs.fi article, the news wire obituary, and likely more in newspapers of the age in Finland that we can't access due to not being digitally available, Ljleppan? A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 11:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, the access situation to this era of news articles is less than stellar. Here are a few I did manage to find from Helsingin Sanomat (titles rough translations): "Joni Nyman and Hannu Vuorinen to hit it off for a European Championship qualifying match" (12 paras total, discusses multiple boxers), "Nyman heads to EC-qualifiers, Nyholm continues undefeated, Vuorinen to undergo arm surgery" (14 paras total, discusses multiple boxers), Grönroos quits, the gang of three continues (7 paras, with a short mention of Vuorinen: " Finnish professional boxing rests on three [persons]. Joni Nyman, Hannu Vuorinen and Jan Nyholm are the only remaining shirtless, when [two other boxers] hang up their gloves"). Not massively detailed bios or anything, but more than just a match result in a long list. Since he's mentioned in the big national papers, I'd imagine there's additional stuff in regional newspapers etc. but then again I can't promise that and "there might be additional sources" is not a great argument for AFD. Not too certain what to think about this one. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep – gold medallist and top of their respective sport in non-Olympic competitions so WP:NOLYMPICS notability level isn't relevant here, sufficient amount of sources available too. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Aage Meyer

Aage Meyer (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG through the lack of significant coverage, both in the article or through a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete In October it was decided that only those who medal in the Olympics are default notable for Olympic participation. The sources here are not enough to meet GNG, the essentially duplication of the one source that is too broad to show notability does not show notability. No other sources that would show notability are identified. To head off one incorrect attempt to keep this article, doing multiple non-notable things does not add up to being notable. No matter how many times someone participates in the Olympics if they do not medal they are not notable for that. If we could find in-depth coverage of their role in the Olympics from multiple sources that are independent of them, intellectually independent of each other and not hyper local "local person makes it big" human interest type coverage, than yes participating in the Olympics and not madaling could be supported as covered by GNG, but that is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a new section of Wrestling at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight, seeing as that was his earliest Olympic event. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Raymond Argentin

Raymond Argentin (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; none is provided in the article and none was discovered in a WP:BEFORE search, which included a search of Gallica.

There is a minor description of him in his Olympedia entry, but it doesn't appear to constitute significant coverage, being limited to a summary of his competition history.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The only sources that have been identified are truly comprehensive databases of all Olympians. We have ruled that only medalists are default notable for participation in the Olympics, so unless we can find sources that would constitute passing GNG this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – I've expanded the article using sources from Google. There is still room for further expansion. Important to note that Argentin wasn't just a one-time Olympian who finished in 4th place, he was the national champion in his sport. For that reason, I believe he comfortably passes notability guidelines. I will continue to look for sources, but I imagine he will get several expansive write-ups upon his death, which will easily bulk up his article beyond its current state. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks like a WP:BEFORE-fail. Schwede66 20:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @Schwede66: I've reviewed the sources, and none of them constitute significant coverage. The independent coverage in Alpes and Midi of Argentin consists of a single paragraph of statistical information Raymond Argentin was born in 1924 in Champigny/Marne. In 1948, at the age of 24, he was selected to compete in the London Games in canoe kayak 1 place over 10,000 m. Entered the French team that year he remained there until 1950. In 48 he won his 1st French Championship, which he won 3 times, in 1,000 m, in 1949, he won the 1,000 and 10,000 m. This athlete progressed quickly because he did not discover single-seater canoeing until 1942, while the coverage in le Courrier du Pay de Retz is just An association that constitutes the living memory of the discipline, whose oldest member is Raymond Argentin, who made 4e at the London Olympics in 1948, and the most recent Tony Estanguet. Sports Reference and Olympedia are databases, while "List of Oldest Living Olympians" appears to both be an unreliable source and its coverage of him, being a list entry, is not significant. Finally, "The 1948 Olympics: How London Rescued the Games" consists of a single line where Argentin's result in the Canadian singles 10,000 metres is listed, which is again not significant. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Accomplishments (national championship victories and international tournaments) suggest that there would be sufficient contemporary reports on this individual if we had access to French sources of the period. While notability is not based on theoretical sources, those that have been provided thus far should be sufficient to keep the article. Canadian Paul 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    See Gpedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources, which appears to be what you are arguing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment – rather conveniently, you've chosen to ignore the fact, pointed out by CP and myself, that this individual wasn't just a 4th place Olympian, but indeed a national champion in their respective sport, rendering your WP:NOLYMPICS argument redundant... --Jkaharper (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
They might have been a national champion, but that doesn't establish notability or even the presumption of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jkaharper and Canadian Paul. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Aad Oudt

Aad Oudt (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, with none being provided in our article, in the Dutch article, or being available in a WP:BEFORE search. Did not medal, and so fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If Google Translate is correct, the closest that comes to significant coverage of Aud Oudt is a single paragraph, stating The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life., which would seem to me to be a trivial mention. You might disagree, but even if you classify that as significant coverage we need multiple sources and we don't have those.
As for the prod, I would think that articles with no significant sources or indication that they exist would be a trivial case. Finally, WP:NATH is limited to "Athletics/track & field and long-distance running", and the fact that the community decided to limit the scope of WP:NOLYMPICS tells us that there is a consensus against your position of presumed notability. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Your reaction is misleading. The text continues to discuss Aad Oudt and to provide information on the sports activist. The article is an in-depth text and Oudt clearly did more than particpation in two (!) Olympics. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
According to Google Translate, the rest of the text discusses the Top Sport Committee, and while there are occasional mentions of Oudt, they are clearly not significant. If I am wrong, could you please provide quotes? BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I will. It's about the changing committee and Oudt's continuing role in it. This is another in-depth source, discussing Oudt's opinions on top sport in the Netherlands and contrasting these with the opinions of Mieke Sterk. 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
And this is the third source. While focused more on the sports achievements of Oudt (the other two are on sports leadership), it also provides biographic information. gidonb (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
And this is again in-depth, even in further depth, also totally refuting JPL below. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these? Going through them, as far as I can tell none of them constitute significant coverage. The first consists of a single paragraph discussing Oudt which ledes into a broader discussion about sport structures, the second consists of a short transcript of a swimming race, primarily covering Oudt's opponent. The third appears to be Oudt being interviewed about the Top Sport Committee; it has minimal coverage of Oudt, and even for an article about the committee I would question whether we can use it to establish notability, as it doesn't include secondary analysis and thus might not meet the independent requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
BM, by now you have taken this AfD and PRODing (while the deletion is very far from trivial) to four pages. Please try to convince in your intro that you have a case and, if that did not work out, add a couple of responses here but there is no need to spread this so wide. gidonb (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, which four pages? As best I can tell, I have discussed this on the talk page of the article under discussion prior to the AFD, and I am now discussing it here. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete To start with whatever we have "traditionally" done, the guidelines changed in October when we decided that non-medaling Olympians are not default notable. Thus this article needs to pass GNG, and the existing and identified sources are not enough to show notability. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, and one article no matter how in-depth is not enough to pass GNG. I agree with BilleMammal that the article is not actually in-depth coverage of Oudt, but even if it is, it is not enough on its own to show GNG passing. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, only medaling in the Olympics is. Unless of course we find multiple, in-depth, indepdent from each other sources that discuss in-depth the person's role in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NATH does not apply, that covers people inbvoled in "athletics", which is essentially the British term for what Americans call "track and field". There are some differences in exactly what the terms cover, but neither are broad enough to include swimmers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It is telling that we know this person in 1968 was seeking to become a tax lawyer, but 54 years later we have no clue if he became a tax lawyer or not. That is a classic case of someone not being a public figure. Again, GNG requires multiple sources and that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, per gidonb. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • GNG requires multiple sources that meet its parameters, but only one source has been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Four have been identified thus far. More may follow but four is what we have right now. Two are sufficient. JPL's other points were also refuted above. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I've actually counted zero constituting significant coverage based on my review above. Could you provide the quotes that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In-depth source #5. gidonb (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said previously, Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these?. Further, quotes of the specific sections that you believe constitute significant coverage would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep – This is getting quite boring now. A single user obsessed with deleting bios of noted individuals, flanked by his sidekick. Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users. There's a point where WP:Goodfaith goes out the window for me, and it's when patterns of non-constructive behaviour amount. User:Gidonb has clearly identified a significant amount of newspaper coverage for this individual. My own searches returned a further two here and here. Arguing that they can't see the significance of the individual because the sources are in Dutch is not an argument. User:BilledMammal has previously been pulled up on their failure to institute WP:BEFORE. It's so important that we conduct thorough searches before nominating articles for deletion. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
My argument is that I can't see the significance because the first four sources don't contain significant coverage, as documented in detail above. I haven't reviewed the fifth nor the two you have provided, because I see no reason to expect that they are any different. If you disagree and believe that they are significant, then I ask that you provide an English language translation of the contents containing significant coverage - both per WP:RSSE, and the general notion that if you believe a source contains significant coverage, it shouldn't be hard to provide quotations containing said coverage.
Finally, noting the personal attacks, please see your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a personal attack. Merely a passive comment about your general conduct on here, and I'm entitled to hold, and to air that opinion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are repeating the conversation here, rather than containing it on the talk page, but as you are: Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users this line in particular is indisputably a personal attack, and I would ask that you strike it and the other, similar lines. If you believe there is an issue with my general conduct, then the correct place to discuss that is on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You brought it here also, that's why I'm also responding to that point on here. Wiktionary itself defines a personal attack as something relating to "the individuals's personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question". I touched on none of those, merely your conduct and patterns of behaviour. I don't wish to discuss this any further. If you feel I have done wrong to you then lodge a complaint against me if you wish. Thanks again. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I have a tendency as of late to vote Delete in any AfD involving a sportsperson where there hasn't been a representation of meeting GNG (because it is turning out more and more that many of them DON'T meet the GNG and the NSPORTS rules are just propping up empty nothings of articles). But, in this case, it does appear other editors have presented a significant amount of coverage from the time period regarding this athlete. So it does appear they meet the GNG. I will even helpfully organize the presented references.
  • "Zachte en harde weg in topsport" [Soft and hard road in top sport]. De Limburger (in Dutch). March 27, 1970. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  • Nypels, Frans (March 12, 1969). "Knap Werk Comité Topsport" [Handsome Work Committee Top Sport]. De Tijd (in Dutch). Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  • "Voorzitter Comité Topsport mr. A. F. Oudt: Als Ons Plan Wordt Aangenomen Zijn We 2000 Jaar Verder" [Chairman of the Top Sport Committee A. F. Oudt: If Our Plan Is Adopted We Will Be 2000 Years Further]. Leeuwarder Courant (in Dutch). January 3, 1970. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  • "Langerhorst: vijfde record" [Langerhorst: fifth record]. Leidsch Dagblad (in Dutch). August 5, 1967. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
  • Onvlee, Peter (April 3, 1969). "Topsporter vraagt erkenning" [Top athlete asks for recognition]. Trouw (in Dutch). Retrieved January 27, 2022.
And here's an additional one that I found myself.
There appears to be plenty more besides in regards to coverage spanning a couple years in the late 60's, early 70's there. SilverserenC 02:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've reviewed most of those, and found them lacking. For instance, the closest your second example comes to significant coverage is this sentence: The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life - and I don't believe that meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If you disagree, could you provide a couple of quotes (perhaps WP:THREE) that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing the source you found, I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage of Oudt, with most mentions of them appearing to be something similar to "Aad Oudt says in his report", "Aad Oudt notes in his report", with the rest being in regards to quotations from him regarding the broader topic - the article seems to be WP:SIGCOV of the report, not of one of its authors. If I have missed a paragraph, could you point me towards its location or otherwise quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, per Dutch newspaper results. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Filipczak

Adam Filipczak (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Passes WP:NBASKETBALL by having played two games professionally, but the presumption of notability is incorrect in this case as they fail WP:GNG, having no significant coverage in the article or through a search, which only turned up a mention in a "Compendium of Professional Basketball". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, on-line searches are made more difficult by the fact that The Detroit News' and Detroit Times do not yet have archives that are readily searchable. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems that the guideline WP:FAILN was not followed before nomination, such as working with subject-matter experts or merely tagging the article with {{notability}}.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, the user is trying to prove a point, not necessarily collaborate. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: There is absolutely no requirement to give a notice period to, or involve, interested parties before nomination. You should note that the advice in FAILN you refer to is preceded by "...look for sources yourself, or:" (emphasis mine). Since the nom confirms that searches have been done, FAILN has in fact been followed. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I didn't say there was a "requirement". If non-experts want to say they did quality research on their own, I suppose there is no explicit rule against that. Well, WP:BEANS.—Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • And I didn't say you did; I merely said there wasn't. You did however state that "WP:FAILN was not followed", which is untrue. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep – Claim of failure to meet WP:GNG is incorrect. A quick search on Newspapers.com returns plenty of coverage in various newspapers. --Jkaharper (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Can you provide some of that coverage? Cbl62 has provided one example above, but we require multiple examples of significant coverage, not just a single example, and my own subsequent search on Newspapers turned up many passing mentions, but no additional significant coverage, though I may have missed something. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • So what? Things were a lot different in the 1930s. Individual athletes weren't singled out and idolised as celebrities as they are today. Yes, most of the papers on there only dedicate a few sentences to him (or in the examples here and here entire sections) but what difference does that make? The article can easily be expanded to a few paragraphs using these newspaper cuttings, which would be a satisfactory length for this subject in my opinion. We shouldn't be bias against time. Every single professional basketball player at his level today would merit a Wiki article. Many of the newspapers and books from the 1930s covering this subject won't be readily available online. That doesn't mean that we can't expand the article over time. Deleting it is counterproductive. The individual is clearly notable as a professional athlete. --Jkaharper (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
If someone has a Newsbank account, I believe they could also search The Detroit News archives here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind. That only goes back to 1999. Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete So people admit that we do not have in-depth coverage that meets the level of GNG. Gpedia is built on reliable secondary sources, if those sources are not giving a person in-depth coverage than we are best not having an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • No, "people" have not admitted that - looks like the research is ongoing given that the AfD nomination was just put in today. One guy made a statement that you are choosing to interpret as "people." Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: Actually, we do have one example of SIGCOV from the Detroit Free Press. The older issues of The Detroit News and Detroit Times are available on microfilm at the Detroit Public Library, but I no longer live in Michigan, so it's difficult to retrieve those. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Microfilm!?!?!? Why hasn't it been scanned yet? Why isn't it free on the Internet?—Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
There is SO MUCH stuff not on-line. I find it weird that I can't find a boxscore from the 1980s except when using a paywalled Newspapers.com account. Rikster2 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, per NBASKET as well as the coverage found by Jkaharper and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Other than the Detroit Free Press feature mentioned above, I only found trivial mentions of him, and GNG requires multiple significant sources. On him passing NBASKETBALL, WP:NSPORT, which NBASKETBALL is a sub-section of, makes it very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable as can be seen in the recent Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski and was upheld in its deletion review. If more significant sources are found, I'll gladly change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep – passes WP:NBASKETBALL and shows just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the Detroit Eagles were in the top pro basketball league of the time and only played for a couple years in the NBL, so cherry-picking one player from their very-limited all-time roster is ridiculous. With that latter point, I'm invoking WP:IAR so that the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster is comprehensive. There's also a strong WP:POINTY vibe from some of the voters in this discussion based on experiences with them in previous basketball AfDs. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@SportsGuy789: Could you post three of what you consider to be the best significant sources that lead him to pass GNG? Regarding the Eagles, while they are notable as a team, notability is is not inherited, meaning that playing for a notable team does not automatically make a person notable. I'm not sure what strong WP:POINTY vibe you are seeing, could you elaborate on that further? Alvaldi (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely meets NBASKETBALL as well as GNG per above sources cited. Agree with SportsGuy, I think we can invoke IAR to have articles on the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster, but there are enough newspaper sources to get over the hump. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
We have one source with significant coverage; that isn't enough to meet GNG. As for NBASKETBALL, it provides a presumption of notability, and per NSPORTS, GNG is still required to be met. Finally, if IAR applies here, then we no longer operate on consensus, we operate on voting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't had time to research fully but a cursory Google search and quick perusal of Newspapers.com doesn't show much additional. I will do a deeper Newspapers.com review, as well as my personal library of several hundred print resources to see what I can find and let you know what I find and !vote then. He is hamstrung a bit by not having played college basketball, which is where a lot of these guys get substantial coverage prior to their pro careers. Rikster2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Still looking for the time to do the physical search, but if anyone has an Ancestry.com account there are some links to newspaper articles here that I can't access that somebody should probably review. Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still on the fence given he barely meets WP:NBASKET by playing in 2 games. I am finding some hits via NewspaperARCHIVE, but only a few. There is this from an article in the The Sheboygan Press on the team makeup for the newly-founded Detroit Eagles. Part of the issue is because Filipczak went straight from high school to semi-pro and factory teams so he lacks the college coverage that most NBASKET passes typically have. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor)

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He also made prominent participation in New Mexico Family Law. Sumneeb (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oleksandr Kuzmik

Oleksandr Kuzmik (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Footballer who fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his career being limited to 2 games on the Ukrainian third tier Geschichte (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Stefan Lindeberg

Stefan Lindeberg (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Back in October it was decided that competitors in the Olympics who do not win medals are not default notable. The sourcing for this article consists only of one source, which is so totally comprehensive that being sourced to is in no way adds towards passing GNG. My searches identified several other people with this name, although I am not sure any are notable. I did find one name dropped in a 1994 book that was discussing issues of sport subsidies, and holding up scandinavian countries as an example, they were mentioning the name to say that sa some unidentified place Stefan Lindeberg had said something about the issue. It was from gbooks and I could only get a snipet, but based on the 1994 nature of the source and this person having died in 1974, I strongly suspect there was some other person with this same name who was involved in some sort of sports administration. Digging deeper I found this listing of a Lindeberg as I think (I can not see much in snippet view) a vice chair of the Swedish Olympic commitee in 1989 [7], which is A-not a position that gives default notability, B-listing in a name list like that is not adding to passing GNG and C-it is clearly someone else, because this person died 15 years earlier. My point is I went and tried to find more sourcing on this person, and came up with absolutely nothing. Because there is that other person with the same name who is as likely if not more likely to be notable, we should not preserve this article as a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 75 kg per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Lugnuts. All the information in this article is there. JPL could frankly have been bold and just done that rather than take the article to AfD, but I understand why he chose to err on the side of caution and take it to AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You are of course ignoring the clear indications that this is not the most proninent person associated with the name. Even within the realm of Olympic sports it seems there was an equally if not more prominent person with this same name. So a redirect does not seem to be a valid option at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. @Smartyllama: @Lugnuts: @Johnpacklambert: Per JPL, a redirect is not a good option in this case. My own google searches (including this) turn up multiple persons with that name who are borderline notable, including an actor, an author, a symphonic conductor, a hockey player, a race car driver, and an entrepreneur. We even have a Wikimedia category for playwright Stefan Lindeberg (here). The proposed redirect presumes that people searching for "Stefan Lindberg" want information on the man who finished ninth in his weight class at the 1936 Olympics. I think it far more likely that such persons are searching for one of the Stefan Lindebergs who gained some measure of notability in the past 50 years. Under these circumstances, redirecting to a chart on results of the 1936 Olympic weightlifting competition does a serious disservice to our readers. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    If we had an article on one of those people, it would be different. But we don't. For now, this is the only Stefan Lindberg covered on Gpedia. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
We have an article on the 1936 Stefan Lindberg, but we shouldn't -- he's less notable than some of the others who a reader might be searching for. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well we do have an article that mentions the TV character Stefan Lindberg. I know it is a slightly different spelling, but still. Anyway, just because a name is burried in a stat list somewhere does not mean it is really a good redirect target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Also there is a possibility that Love and Anarchy will be seen to be a notable TV series and get an article. If we see what noramlly happens with TV series and films the creator will mass link the names of the whole cast, and having just yesterday removed a cast link to a person who died about 75 years before the film in question was created, I know people do not look into those links well, so leaving this as a redirect to an obscure Olympic competitor might well lead to us having a false link on the cast list of a 2020s TV show to a person who died in the 1970s. Some of these other people have received at least as much if not more coverage than this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • there also evidently was a recurring character in a 2011-2018 Danish TV show named Stefan Lindberg. I am not sure how likely Danish and Swedish speakers are to confuse these names, but I as an English speaker did confuse them. This idea that competing, as opposed to medaling in the Olympics is a major detail that makes someone even borderline notable is not quite supported by sources. I found a funeral notice for an Olympian who was also a medical doctor, who died 9 years after his participation in the Olympics, in the city where he did his medical practice no less, that did not make any mention of his being involved in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree this guy isn't notable, and every bit of information in this article is in the other article, so a redirect seems reasonable for now. If there were another suitable place for this to go, that would be different, but there isn't, and we can always delete the redirect later to make way for an article about one of the other ones if someone wants to write such an article. Does the Danish TV show have an article on this wiki currently? If not, it's a moot point. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
e/c :If there was a more notable person called "Stefan Lindeberg" on WP, they would be the primary topic already, and this guy would be at Stefan Lindeberg (weightlifter). If/when an article for another guy with the same name is created, then a WP:RM can be done to move it to the basename, as this is done all the time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilal Ziani Guennon

Bilal Ziani Guennon (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find any newspaper articles or the like on him. Just barely scrapes by WP:FOOTYN having made a 84th-minute substitute appearance in the CAF Champions League for Wydad AC. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Where does it say that he is actively playing there? The article says he is not. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Emmanuel Mbarga

Emmanuel Mbarga (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 · NYT · WP Library)

According to Soccerway and other databases he has not played in a WP:FPL so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I conducted a French search to see if there was any coverage of his amateur career in France but found little. I also did a Portuguese search for his amateur career in Portugal to no avail. I did find this Khmer Times article but it isn't significant coverage since most of it is derived from an announcement from people associated with his club. It makes an erroneous claim that he played for Cameroon internationally but there is no profile at NFT for him. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Saveng Samnang

Saveng Samnang (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Deleted 3 years ago for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This third attempt to create the article makes no claim to notability. Being Goalkeeper of the Season in a semi-pro league is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on its own. The native form of his name is "សាវែង សំណាង". I didn't find any in-depth coverage when searching here or here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Takaki Ose

Takaki Ose (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Deleted last year for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He is still not playing at the professional level so there is no claim to the latter guideline. In terms of GNG, the one cited source is not significant coverage; it's just a contract renewal announcement. I found him mentioned in an image caption here but that also doesn't establish anything. If anyone can show clear significant, detailed coverage I will happily withdraw but, for now, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be deleted for a third time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom. Non-notable footballer with no pro appearances. JTtheOG (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --John B123 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, recommend Salt JW 1961 Talk 15:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. CLearly not notable at the moment. Oppose SALTing however as his career is still active and he could be notable someday. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom. No evidence of notability and doesn't have the required level of WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. As with the other two AfD's, this should also result in delete in my opinion. Third time's a charm? GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ella Stevens (racing driver)

Ella Stevens (racing driver) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Possibly-promotional WP:BLP of a child racing driver who apparently has a good publicist but no current claim to long-term significance. At present this article seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. While the sourcing here suggests the subject may pass the WP:GNG, I believe that Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Ugo Ugochukwu, Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Ugo Ugochukwu (2nd nomination), Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Powell, and Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Kimi Antonelli all demonstrate a precedent to delete articles of this type. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referencing the outcome of that deletion discussion at the time it took place. It appears Antonelli may now have received further coverage sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Per my comment below, changed my opinion upon deeper evaluation of the sources. At best case, a WP:BARE notability on WP:GNG, and an obvious failure of WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:NTEMP clearly says that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." She meets WP:GNG through i (newspaper), CNN and Formula Scout bits cited in the article already. There's also more at Capital (French magazine) [20], and Gazette Series (published by Newsquest) [21]. It definitely reads a bit promotional, but that's something the AfD is not for. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Of the sources you provided, the CNN one is an interview, the Capital one just speaks about her background, her backers, and so on—they all basically go on a tangent about how good she is and how much she is going to make history, but only the iNews one actually focuses on her achievements, whereas the Gazette Series is just short coverage of a very minor local karting competition. The Formula Scout one is a bit eh, it's good coverage but the topic isn't that significant and making the list isn't particularly worthy. All it suggests to me is she has a good publicist, as the nominator mentioned. Her results are largely uninspiring and competing for a spot in the FDA is nowhere near notable, especially when she didn't even make the finals and the 2021 winners (Laura Camps Torras and Maria Germano Neto) don't have an article. If Antonelli, Ugochukwu and a literal GP3 driver are all deletable, then I see zero reason to keep this one. MSport1005 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
MSport1005 I've given the sources a very detailed look. The reason why I mentioned CNN is because, beyond the interview quoting, there is some independent reporting on her in separate sentences. But, I have realized the 2nd half is all basically about Stevens' staff, and not her alone in fact. So, I've struck that one out. Capital is actually copying the CNN's article, so that one is thrown to the garbage bin too. Like you said, iNews is good. While I believe that Formula Scout is WP:SIGCOV, Gazette Series' isn't (few sentences only). So I come to the WP:BARE situation, where I myself will lean and change my vote to delete. If Stevens achieves something in the future, the article could always be recreated. As a notice, I'd support an instant recreation for Antonelli, just like I said above. The sources I posted were never discussed in AfDs, and per guidelines (would need a bit of new text of course), if added there, it would bypass G4 deletion. Ugochukwu's coverage is very WP:ROUTINE (beyond one decent Autoweek article) and McLaren tied from what an initial glance, sadly. And like WP:NMOTORSPORT says, only GP2/F2 as top-level feeder fulfills the notability criteria, so GP3 is just not reaching it. Thank you for doing a reply to me, because it made me go deeper into all of this, as I change my views when faced with good points. Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
For clarity, I don't support the re-creation of Ugo Ugochukwu's article. He's got quite some independent coverage, magnified of course by his signing for McLaren, but he's a pretty overrated karting driver in my opinion, and is set to make his racing debut in a way easier series compared to Antonelli (and Antonelli has already had decent success in Italian and UAE F4). MSport1005 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Doru Sechelariu

Doru Sechelariu (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this largely unsourced WP:BLP, with a WP:BEFORE search only seeming to return WP:ROUTINE coverage, passing mentions, or sources which do not appear to be independent of the subject. Ideally someone who can read Romanian could help with determining whether there are any suitable sources which could get this article up to the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Neutral – After looking at MSport1005's comments clearly there aren't zero sources. I wouldn't say he unambiguosly passes GNG, and I'd personally prefer deletion, but there appears to be coverage in Romania so it doesn't seem as bad as it did. 5225C (talk • contributions) 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep — I don't speak Romanian, but I could find these with ease: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] covering his "promising" career and his future aspirations, [27] apparently covering an incident with the police, [28] is more of a passing mention as a young up-and-coming Romanian talent, [29], [30] two visibly non-ROUTINE announcements, and [31], [32], [33], [34] which suggest some sort of relevance as an F1 pundit/expert in his country. Funnily enough, he was the subject of an F1-related april fools joke: [35], and even the gossip press talks about him nowadays [36], [37]. I might have a second look later to see if I can find more, but just based off this (combined with the fact that he completed a full GP3 season) he seems to comfortably meet GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm undecided for now. He completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, so we turn over to WP:GNG. Looking at MSport1005's sources, bits in Adevarul [38]/[39] (per WP:GNG they count as one source) are good examples of secondary non-trivial coverage. Automarket seems good enough, but I am not sure whether that website is a reliable source. Fanatik one is an interview, and thus isn't independent to count for notability. Realitea Sportiva one just copies Fanatik's interview. Cancan is a tabloid website, making it not reliable. Evenimentul Zilei bit has only 3 sentences (2 of those being short) about him, so I can't call that WP:SIGCOV. SportAuto is a quote farm (meaning it's not independent), and MotorsportNews is a mere blog. Gazeta Sporturilor contains his analysis of Hamilton-Verstappen battle, but is of very little importance in terms of his own notability. TVS24 is yet another blog, Cancun again, WP:TRIVIA April Fools, WowBiz isn't a significant coverage of Doru. I'll try to dig for more sources if possible (including my research on Automarket), but for now I'm leaning delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I've had another look at them. #1/#5 and #2 are SIGCOV (Automarket indeed is reliable). #4 as you say is just a copy, #7 and #8 aren't sufficiently extense. The ones you wrote off as blogs (#9, #11, #13) I'm not sure they actually are, as messy as they might look (their reliability might need review though). The fact that a newspaper like Fanatik (#3) went to interview him, tabloids (#6, #15) talk about him without even needing to introduce him, and GSP (#10, #12) have him as their go-to expert suggest clear notability within Romania. #14 I never intended it as SIGCOV, and #16 is a tabloid and refers to him as "Dumitru's son" so we can ommit those two. We're left with potentially 6/7 proper sources, plus whatever we can find in an advanced WP:BEFORE search, so I'm heavily inclined towards keep. MSport1005 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. It appears that you have found some sources which I was unable to find in my searches. I'm still not fully convinced that this meets the WP:GNG, but the Adevarul sources probably take the article half-way to meeting it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor League Baseball players who committed suicide

Minor League Baseball players who committed suicide (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 · NYT · WP Library)

That's one bizarre topic for a list: somehow, major leaguers are excluded from the scope so we're left with little-known baseball players that (rightfully) don't have an article on Gpedia. The source [40] is used quite a bit on Gpedia so on one hand I'm tempted to assume that it is considered reliable but on the other hand, looking through the site, a lot of its content is newspaper clippings which is useful for us but doesn't really say much about the site's reliability. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd question the relevance of that list too. It's a pretty arbitrary intersection. Something like List of boxers who committed suicide would make a bit of sense because of research showing potential links between suicide risk and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. There's no evidence that playing baseball and dying by suicide are in any way related so List of baseball players who committed suicide is as irrelevant as List of architects who committed suicide and List of baseball players who died in a car crash. Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pichpich and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Muboshgu....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no evidence that these form a group, and there is no evidence that any reliable source has ever though to think of these as a group. This is before we deal with the other problem that basically none of the people on the list are even notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Ridiculous. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. The presence of this kind of list is bizarre. Spf121188 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as in nom and nom's comment above. yikes. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Amirul Syafik

Amirul Syafik (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Deleted previously for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains relevant. The two new references added are passing mentions only. Malaysian searches of Amirul Syafik and the alternative spelling of Amirul Shafik yielded very little. Passing mentions like Kosmo and Utusan don't cut it. This article shouldn't be restored until a clear amount of WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Ganger

Jeremy Ganger (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Stub article with no evidence of notability. McPhail (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Most of the sources relate to his involvement in the shooting, which suggests WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. Is he notable outside of his involvement in a single event? I'd suggest not. McPhail (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's hardly badgering. Questioning responses in AfDs is standard to make sure the argument holds up. If the WP:SINGLEEVENT point can't be addressed then it kinda undermines your keep vote. — Czello 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What I have written, I have written. We see this differently. You already said your piece. I don't need you to badger me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Max Zumstein

Max Zumstein (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable athlete who participated in one Olympics and got no medals. Wgullyn (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. My searches did not turn up any SIGCOV. The best I found is this which simply confirms that he was on the Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh out of nine teams competing at the 1928 Olympics. If researchers later dig up SIGCOV, this could be recreated without the loss of substance (the narrative text here is less than 15 words). Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This article was part of a batch creation of 11 identical, cookie-cutter, one-line sub-stubs on members of the same 1928 Swiss field hockey team that finished seventh of nine teams. All were created within a 13-minute span as follows:
(1) Charles Piot (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:37),
(2) Ernst Luchsinger (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:38),
(3) Édouard Mauris (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:40),
(4) Fred Jenny (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:41)
(5) Henri Poncet (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(6) Jean-Jacques Auberson (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(7) Werner Fehr (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:42),
(8) Zumstein (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45);
(9) Maurice Magnin (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:45),
(10) Roland Olivier (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:46), and
(11) Adalbert Koch (created 10 Sep 2019 at 18:50).
The purported claim to notability is their participation on the 1928 Switzerland men's national field hockey team, and there isn't even an article on that team. All 11 of these sub-stubs should probably be deleted IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with User:Cbl62 - none of these articles have any notability and it looks like they were all copy/pasted with only the names changed. Wgullyn (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all 11. Just clarifying that my original delete vote applies to all 11 of the cookie-cutter articles listed above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all. No evidence of notability demonstrated for any of them. Also, three articles created in the same minute, and 11 in 13 minutes, suggests the creator didn't even check for notability before creating - which unfortunately means we are likely to waste more time debating their deletion than they did creating them. BilledMammal (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a rather false claim, as they all met the notability requirements when they were created. Unfortunately, those were changed about two years AFTER the pages were created. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Marcel Heim

Marcel Heim (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Heim was a competitor in the 1936 Olympics. We source this to an exhaustive source. We decided last October that only Olympic medalists are default notable, others have to either pass another inclusion criteria or clearly pass GNG. My searches turned up things like LinkedIn pages on other people with this name, but no additional sourcing on this Marcel Heim. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now also checked the LA84 Foundation's digital library (here), which contains a ton of Olympic-related material. Didn't find any SIGCOV of Heim there either. If you or others come up with something, I'm happy to reconsider. . . . and, frankly, even if it gets deleted and something then turns up later, it's not as though we've lost anything since the article consists of one line of narrative text. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hazel Hutcheon

Hazel Hutcheon (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of notability and citation. This is a stub with only one source...that the human being exists. -Markeer 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to List of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That list now exists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
!vote amended. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete non-medaling Olympians are not considered default notable and the sources we have in the article and that have been identified in this discussion are no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Delete. As fun as it was to go digging to find information on her, the resources available online do not support keeping this article. Seems a shame as I suspect there are hard copies of stories about her that we simply cannot access. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. National champion in her event. Sources look okay to me. Deb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Deb: Consensus has long established that GNG has to be met when the (often very weak) presumption of notability offered by NSPORTS is challenged. As such, please can you clarify exactly what significant coverage you are seeing in these sources that would meet GNG? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Wjemather:Are you disputing that she was national champion? Deb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • @Deb: No (btw, it was me who added that information to the article), I am disputing that there is significant coverage in the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • @Wjemather: She fulfils the criteria for an assumption of notability as defined in Gpedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running. Deb (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @Deb: Aside from being a skier, not a track and field athlete... such a claim would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion but at AFD, any NSPORTS-based presumption (not assumption) of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • @Wjemather: Sorry about those typos, but, regardless of the sport, your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure where your zeal for deleting national sporting champions comes from, but that's my position. The claim is sufficient because it is backed by reliable sources. There don't need to be hordes of articles and books. Deb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Gregory McDermott

Gregory McDermott (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 · NYT · WP Library)

As a non-medalling Olympian, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in the article and none could be identified in a WP:BEFORE search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The Horse Magazine entry is not significant coverage, and while the Equestrian Life entry might be, it is only a single example when we require WP:THREE, and the fact that it focuses on McDermott's son, rather than McDermott, suggests that might not constitute significant coverage of McDermott. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:THREE is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there is sufficient here to support GNG and allow some depth to be added to much more than a stub, including at least one detailed bio. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's a Google Search. Could you provide specific examples? BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep. It is a trimmed search to make it easy for people to find specifically relevant sources. There is this bio at third top (on my results), for example. There is sufficient in the results to provide some depth as to the subject's history and career over a number of decades. See WP:NEXIST Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete a few short mentions in extremely niche publications is not enough to show notability. We decided that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. I am just not convinced that niche equstrian pulications are enough. Maybe the 2nd soruce, but the first source is also too short to count as passing the in depth coverage of GNG, so even if we accept niche equestrian publications as enough, we only have at best one GNG meeting source, and GNG requires multiple sources that are in depth and meet all its other prongs, so the one truly in-depth source is not enough to pass GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Since yesterday, the article has been expanded by the excellent work by Hack. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The expanded article now passes the GNG bar. The coverage from The Canbera Times and the two-part profile in The Horse Magazine have the kind of depth that is needed. And thanks to User:Hack for the improvements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep No outstanding issues. Deb (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug Novak

Doug Novak (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Questionable notability per WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:NBASKET with respect to depth of coverage and secondary sourcing. Poorly-sourced; strongest secondary sources supporting the subject may generally conflict with the principle of WP:AUD. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I know there's no such thing as an auto-keep, but this nomination makes no sense. He's coaching at the Division I level and has a history of success on lower levels, and games played under an interim title count just as much as they would if he gets hired permanently. Nate (chatter) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The league and team might be notable but notability is not inherited. Inclusion for athletes and coaches on Gpedia is not merit based, rather it is based on them being covered significantly by indepth articles. The nomination questions his notability due to lack of coverage and as such makes sense since there doesn't seem to be alot of significant articles written on Novak. While Rikster2 has found three indepth sources, two of them are by the same author and all three are from a timespan of three weeks and brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As Alvaldi mentioned, notability is not inherited; the suitability of a subject earning a standalone article is not founded on that subject's future prospects. That is why existing coverage is important; until such a time as a subject's independent notability is clearly established by significant & targeted coverage, it may make more sense to merge the information into a larger article (in this case, the team's article). Headphase (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Sigh 😒...then why did you nominate it for deletion?! If you think it works as a redirect, try to do so yourself and if it doesn't stick, then bring it to AfD. I'm getting real sick of these quixotic deletion nominations where deletion will not be the end result, the nom still takes it right to AfD, and redirects and PRODs aren't ever considered. And if he gets a permanent contract and/or wins the title, this nom is going to look silly and downright embarrassing in retrospect; I guarantee you if the subject was an interim FBS football coach in September or men's basketball coach in early December, you'd be TROUTed and speedy closed, because an interim college head coach is still a head coach. Nate (chatter) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Gpedia is not a crystal ball. Whether Novak gets a permanent contract or wins a championship in the future is irrelevant to this AfD. He either has the significant coverage to pass GNG today or he doesn't and thus is not notable enough to warrant an article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, round 2: 1 and 2. BTW, GNG only requires “multiple” significant sources. Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - SEC women's head coach meets GNG and has sources. Not sure why this was even nominated. Jhn31 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the three articles that have been found, two are from the same author/newspaper and as such count as single source for the purposes of establishing notability. All three are from a timespan of three weeks, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage related to his hiring. There is no inherited notability gained for coaching a certain team or in a certain league and !votes that state that the subject should be kept due to that contradict policy. NSPORTS specifically states that athletes and coaches have to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. I tried looking for other sources, including on newspapers.com, but did not find anything of substance. Two articles in a span of three weeks are not enough in my opinion. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Have you done any independent research yourself for sources? I dug those out in 5 minutes from a Google search. If you are going to repeatedly insert yourself into this debate then I think you also need to give looking for sources an honest go before proclaiming someone doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Rikster2: As I mentioned in my above comment, I did look for sources. To clarify, I tried a few Google searches with some variations (name + different schools etc.) and went through a few pages. I also did a search Newspapers.com where I also tried few variations and different time periods. The best I found were the same sources your search turned up. I am more than willing to change my !vote if others have better luck in finding significant sources from perhaps earlier in his career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I added a couple more references above. Including a lengthy interview from the Minneapolis Star when he was at Bethel. The GNG requirement isn't 30 sources it is "multiple sources." I have now cited 4 different (if you combine the 2 Clarion Ledger as one source). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Good work on the sources. GNG isn't a massive hurdle to overcome, three good sources are usually enough. He now has multiple significant sources from over at least 4 year period. I will change my !vote to Keep. I also added the sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - All bar one of the previous Mississippi State Bulldogs women's basketball head coaches have pages for them (see template on page). Plus there seem to be a number of articles about him which are easily found on the internet. Perhaps worth adding additional information about win/loss whilst assistant at earlier places and more on what he did at Bethel. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as the subject of articles like this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Snow keep – I question the objectors' WP:BEFORE diligence. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a number of third party, significant, reliable sources, only to then see a couple editors above already linked them in support of keeping this article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Lsw2472 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Raimonds Dambis

Raimonds Dambis (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable individual. Article is unsourced, and a search online found no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Jkaharper (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Niels Heinsøe

Niels Heinsøe (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ümit Uygunsözlü

Ümit Uygunsözlü (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Cbl62 The TRT Haber is a reliable source, but it's in Spanish (don't ask me why). From the above sources, I'd say that the Habertürk and Anadolu Agency sources (the final two) are also reliable. However the content of these three sources is the same, the Habertürk one literally starts with "ANKARA (AA) -", with AA being the initials of Anadolu Ajansı. My own search however does result in some other sources:
The CNN source is a bit too short for my liking to be considered "substantial", but together with the AA source above it totals up to three reliable and significant sources with one not-so-significant but reliable source. I am not quite familiar with darting, so if a SNG exists I won't be bothered to look at it, though I think this meets the general guideline, thus making SNGs irrelevant and being enough to keep this. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Norbert Attard

Norbert Attard (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Godfrey Abela

Godfrey Abela (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Michalis Prodromou

Michalis Prodromou (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Despite 107 mins of football to his name, I was unable to find any coverage that would count towards WP:GNG. Searching in English and in Greek, I couldn't find anything decent. Google News has nothing. A source search in Greek also had nothing. Marginal WP:NFOOTBALL pass but nothing towards GNG so, in my view, this should be deleted unless significant coverage turns up. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DJ Ryan Hall

DJ Ryan Hall (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Can't find anything to suggest Hall passes WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Full source analysis will follow. I found Tudo Pelo Futebol in a WP:BEFORE search but, with no games listed there, it doesn't establish notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://bleachersbrew.blogspot.com/2011/02/cast-nearly-complete-for-azkals.html Yes No Blogspot sites are almost never reliable No Mentioned once No
https://www.djryanhall.com/about No His own website No No Anyone can make a website these days No
https://www.instagram.com/p/CXBrjdOs7x5/ No No Social media No No
https://auranight.club/events-and-vip/ No No No Not mentioned No
https://auranight.club/events-and-vip/ No No No As above No
https://www.facebook.com/BacchusBishopsStortford/photos/2445185438958642 No No Facebook ad No No
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUZm1EosuQM/ No No Instagram ad No No
https://www.instagram.com/p/CV_NeiGLMz7/ No No Instagram ad No No
https://www.instagram.com/p/CWbZqRkMwss/ No No Instagram ad No No
https://www.instagram.com/p/CWq_JgULMef/ No No Instagram ad No No
https://www.transfermarkt.com/ryan-hall/profil/spieler/207665 Yes No See WP:TRANSFERMARKT, unreliable No Stats No
https://www.pep.ph/lifestyle/celebrations/145607/phil-younghusband-wedding-a721-20190827-lfrm Yes Yes No 3 passing mentions No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete As clearly mentioned in source assessment table by nominator. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN. DMySon (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: This feels like WP:PROMO. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV to indicate the subject qualifies for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would fully concur with the points raised by the nominator and other editors above. The subject does not have the level of coverage or notability that would be needed for them to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ben Hingeley

Ben Hingeley (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple significant, independent, secondary non-routine coverage, and all criteria of the new WP:NMOTORSPORT. The article contains a WP:ROUTINE coverage from the team he particiapted for (hence not independent of the subject), and my searches bring similiar announcements. Seems to have retired from racing after 2019, so it's unlikely something will change. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment MSport1005 voting speedy keep on this is absolutely ridiculous, as he doesn't really meet any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He didn't really do actually anything notable, nor there's "quality" you are speaking of. That he'd be the only European F3 without an article is an useless fact (and there are more that should be nominated). As for the sources you posted: 1) he was a WRDA member, meaning it's not an independent source, 2) quote galore (meaning again, not independent) in what's a source of unclear reliability, 3) not a significant coverage + seems to be a blog about local things in Abergele, 4) is basically quotes from his dad + 3 sentences and 5) doesn't meet what's said in WP:SPORTCRIT ("Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage.", it's local and this is a race report coverage). 6) is WP:ROUTINE (we are talking about routine events here, that is a signing to a team), and 7) is the same as 6) + doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I did a lot of digging, but I didn't find multiple sources that'd give him notability per WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The 'quality' bit is just an opinion, I always saw Hingeley as a good driver hindered by sub-par machinery and a lack of budget. Not that it matters anyway, I just never imagined him being nominated. On the other hand, anything that you don't recognise doesn't necessarily "seem unreliable", that's just prejudicial scepticism. Check WP:NOTROUTINE too. MSport1005 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand the context now, thank you for explaining it. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, since I didn't want to come out that way. My stance about (un)reliable sources stands: Automobil Sport doesn't even have a team/staff page, Abergele Post is a blog handled by Gareth Morlais, and RNW doesn't give me many hopes reading the staff page. There's no bias or prejudice from my side (that's absurd), it's all opinionated on something. Also thank you for showing me that essay, but I am not a fan of essays, nor do I agree with it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Umm... you were making very fair points until that last sentence. MSport1005 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If that's all you're saying as a reply, those "fair points" didn't really do anything. Essays are only viewpoints (and my disagreement with some of them has no bearing on this AfD). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I have compiled a source assessment table to justify my rationale, based on sources provided by MSport1005 in this discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://wrda.co.uk/ben-hingeley-takes-3rd-place-in-the-2017-f3-championship/ No A driving club which the subject is a member of No Self-published by the Club on a Wordpress blog. Yes Talks about subject's 3rd place finish in British F3 No
https://www.automobilsport.com/ben-hingeley-gp3-outing-abu-dhabi---170802.html Yes Secondary context with quotes from subject Yes Impressum section of the website indicates a news structure exists. No Secondary context is limited to three sentences. Ultimately, this is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a GP3 test. No
http://abergelepost.com/ben-hingeley-racing-driver-abergele/ No "Some bloke sent us this this story" with no apparent verification done. No Another self-published Wordpress blog No ROUTINE coverage of an award given to him by the above driving club. No
https://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/sport/15724654.abergele-karter-wins-national-championship-event/ Yes A mix of secondary context and quotes Yes Owned by Newsquest Media Group Ltd. No ROUTINE coverage of a karting championship No
https://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/15743256.kart-star-hingeley-in-fifth/ Yes Some secondary context Yes Also owned by Newsquest. No This article is even more ROUTINE, and covers a much less significant achievement than Rhyl Journal. No
https://www.autosport.com/fia-f3/news/hingeley-gets-hitech-seat-for-2018-formula-3-european-championship-4986779/4986779/ Yes Secondary context with quotes from a team boss. Yes Autosport is among the most well-known and trusted sources in its field. Yes Provides a brief career summary while covering his signing with an F3 team Yes
https://racingnewsworldwide.com/open-wheel/hingeley-palou-step-fia-formula-3-european-championship/ Yes Secondary context with quotes from subject. ? Owned by "DMJ Group" which apparently is an automotive company No More ROUTINE coverage, then goes on a tangent about Álex Palou No
Table created using {{source assess table}}
That's a pretty complete assessment, thank you. I have now found these [48] [49] which are announcements but not necessarily ROUTINE, [50] [51] covering the same topic with less precision (not as confident about them), [52] in anticipation of his GP3 test (the original article at motorsport-news.co.uk isn't accessible anymore, I've tried rescuing it at web.archive.org to no avail), [53] originally from a local paper covering single-seater win and championship lead, and [54] an interview from early 2018. Still stand by my keep !vote although the 'speedy' was a bit overzealous from my side. MSport1005 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – I can see why MSport1005 sees this as a keep case, but I have to disagree. The coverage in the article and provided by MSport1005 does not satisfy the requirements of the GNG, which is quite plainly shown in GhostOfDanGurney's assessment table. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadeq Al-Ahmed

Sadeq Al-Ahmed (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Another in a line of Soccerway mirror articles created by long-term vandal Mhsohaib. While he has participated in 3 games of professional football, his playing time is only 32 minutes, which is less than half a game of football. He has played in a cup game but not while playing for a WP:FPL club at the time.

Searching "صادق الأحمد" yielded very little coverage and none of it seems to be significant. I found a transfer announcement in Ar Riyadiyah, which is one sentence long. I then found trivial mentions in Al Yaum and Al Riyadh. None of this demonstrates WP:GNG. Consensus is that such articles should be deleted unless significant coverage can be demonstrated. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Muaiad Admawi

Muaiad Admawi (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Almost a decade ago, this man played 74 mins of professional sport. The sources are database websites only and the article is just a prose version of his Soccerway entry. Slstat is preserved here and clearly has no WP:GNG coverage. He has a cup game listed on his Soccerway page but this occurred when Al Wehda FC were not playing in the 2013–14 Saudi Professional League following their relegation in the 2012–13 Saudi Professional League, therefore it doesn't confer notability.

Searching "مؤيد أدماوي" yields a couple of passing mentions in Sport KSA and a match day squad listing in Makkah News. None of this complies with GNG either. Clear consensus from well over 100 recent AfDs that footballers who trivially meet WP:NFOOTBALL but fail GNG should be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Honey Gori

Honey Gori (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 · NYT · WP Library)

PROD removed saying he has played for the Czech Republic. That may well be the case, but under WP:NCRIC guidelines the Czech Republic do not play at a high enough level for inclusion to be satisfied; by extension WP:GNG is also not satisfied, references are stats pages, a scorecard and mention of him playing in a league in the US which is non-notable. StickyWicket (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Frederick Denman

Frederick Denman (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Worth noting - a nomination (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, finished #6 individual and team was #4 at the 1952 Olympics [55] which does not meet WP:NOLYMPIC. The only other info I could find about him is that he was an Army Lieutenant and 1952 was the last all-military pentathlon team the US sent [56] so I can't see how he meets WP:GNG either. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete We have decided that non-medaling Olympians do not get default inclusion. The other sourcing is not enough to show a passing of GNG, and so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I searched Newspapers.com expecting to find SIGCOV but found the coverage to be very thin. Nothing that would satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete my searches were no more fruitful than those above. Denman existed, but nothing to approach GNG. Star Mississippi 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Denman had the best result of the three US competitors. For some reason, the other two are not nominated for deletion. Deb (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Non sequitur WP:OSE. Unfortunately we have tens of thousands of these mass-productions without sigcov that may need to go, and they are among them. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Non sequitur. Denman is the most successful of the three and there is no consensus that all stubs without sigcov have to be removed in any set period. Deb (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Lugnuts. In the future, I would encourage editors to simply be bold and redirect pages like this where a clear target exists rather than create a bunch of AfDs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Tristan Connelly

Tristan Connelly (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. The fight record are merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 04:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Although he's close to meeting WP:NMMA, there's no evidence that shows he meets WP:GNG. All I see is routine sports reporting. Previous discussions have shown that simply meeting WP:NMMA is not sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It is for when they're an active fighter. NMMA guidelines are used to create pages in hopes that they eventually do meet GNG, if Connelly did meet NMMA we would keep the page but since he doesn't yet there's no reason to. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 08:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Aurélien Gazeau

Aurélien Gazeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |