Talk:Bahman Golbarnezhad

Notability & recentism
This article appears to be a textbook case of WP:Recentism bias. Also I am not sure what the claim to encyclopedic notability is. The para-athletes' notability guidelines asserts a medal is needed to ring the WP:N bell. I don't see any evidence of that in his background. That pretty much leaves us with his death and the resulting coverage which falls under WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information and we don't create articles on every subject that happens to garner some one time news coverage. If someone can point to something other than his tragic death as establishing notability that would be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe his death is notable, as he died during the 2016 Paralympics, the most important event for para-athletes, and is the first person to do so since 1960. Granted, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he didn't win a medal, however I think he passes WP:GNG. How many non-British Paralympians are covered in articles by BBC News and The Guardian? This coverage isn't just run-of-the-mill. Joseph2302 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically you are saying the only reason for his notability is the circumstances of his death. This is precisely the reason we have BLP1E. The unfortunate reality is that non-notable people die under unusual and sometimes news garnering circumstances all the time. But people who gain temporary coverage for one event with little (in this case none at all) likelihood of doing anything else that rings the WP:N bell almost never get an article. This event is sad. But in the grand scheme of things it's long term historical significance could probably be fairly described as trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think he passes GNG but I am wondering why merely competing in the Olympics passes notability but not merely competing in the Paralympics. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is an exception to GNG. Do you think BLP1E does not apply here? If so, why? This seems like a textbook case for why we have that exception. On a side note, I also wonder about the difference in standards for paralimpic athletes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to engage in a good discussion about this; I would concede that you are probably right when it comes to the letter of the guideline. I guess I am thinking more about how Wikipedia would be made better by excluding information about this rare event(it's been 56 years and equipment and medical tests should be preventing this sort of thing) that people out there might want to read more about. I admit that I have no logical arguments to counter the guidelines you bring up.
 * I would add I don't know if it is possible to find information about his military service to add to this page. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I agree that the circumstances of his death are somewhat unusual. But that could describe multiple deaths all over the world, everyday. I think what we are looking for in articles are subjects of lasting significance. This is reflected not only in BLP1E but also the essay on recentism, which as I have noted elsewhere is a real problem on the project. I am left asking what is the lasting impact of this man's tragic death? Beyond those who study sports trivia, who will remember this twenty or even ten years from now? To quote from BLP1E...
 * ''Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met...


 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.


 * I would suggest that relevant material be merged with and the article redirected to 2016 Summer Paralympics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Making a merge would be completely wrong. The article is about a double paralympian (2012, 2016).BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal has been rejected. The already existing paragraph about his death in the 2016 Summer Paralympics is sufficient for that article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The notabilty tag is crazy. Take the article to AfD if it's not notable. There is no grey area, it's black and white.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this to the talk page. Your recent removal of the Notability tag and then removing it again after it was restored came with this edit summary... nope, he's either notable, or he isn't. If it's the latter, AfD is your friend. I think that is problematic. This might be seen as showing a disregard for the ongoing discussions over this subject. And it implies the tag should not even exist while ignoring the availability of other venues to discuss the topic without going to AfD. There are other options besides AfD for non-notable topics including mergers and redirects. AfD should not be the first recourse if there are doubts about notability. Discussion should, unless it is an extremely obvious case. If you think the article should be deleted you are of course free to nominate it yourself. May I respectfully ask that you restore the tag until some consensus is reached? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I know this is closed, but in answer to your points - I think the article IS notable, hence why the tag was removed. I'm not going to restore a tag that is obviously wrong. Seeing as you're the one doubting the notability in the first place, I recommend you're the one raising the AfD. Of course, there's not a snowball's chance of it being deleted.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Medal history
I'm having a hard time finding Golbarnezhad's medal history. The Iran Front Page says that he has won thirteen gold medals and one silver medal in his weightlifting career. (IFP) BBC (Persian) reports that he has won the silver medal in the Asian Championships in 2006, the bronze medal in Parasyayy in 2010, and the gold medal in the Asian Games in Malaysia in 2012 (BBC). Does anyone have any luck finding official results for these competitions in which Golbarnezhad has won medals in? —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to work out which Asian Championship they mean. The dates don't match those of the Asian Para Games, and the only Asian Weightlifting Championships appears to be for able-bodied athletes. Joseph2302 20:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2006 dates may refer to IPC Powerlifting World Championships. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahman Golbarnezhad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160918112032/https://www.rio2016.com/es/paralimpicos/atleta/bahman-golbarnezhad to https://www.rio2016.com/es/paralimpicos/atleta/bahman-golbarnezhad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)