Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Skelley


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  17:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris Skelley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I don't believe being selected for the 2016 British paralympic team meets WP:NSPORT nor does a third place finish at the blind European championships.Mdtemp (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Competing at the Paralympics should meet WP:NOLYMPICS, the original intent of creating that guideline was that it wouldn't have different rules for Olympians and Paralympians (somewhere along the line that got lost and it now only allows for Paralympic medallists but that's a whole other argument). Admittedly he won't actually compete at the Paralympics for a few more months but for a decently written, well sourced article (his selection and results appear in multiple BBC, BT Sport, IPC, BPA, etc. articles) I see no reason to delete now for the sake of recreating down the road - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 10:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point isn't whether it "should" meet WP:NOLYMPICS but the fact is that it doesn't. Please don't create your own notability rules.Mdtemp (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record I did actually create those notability rules, hence the current discrepency is both surprising to me and as FruitMonkey says bordering on a disgrace - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not sure if as the article creator I am allowed to vote for this article, but here it is. I believe that he does pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately there is no section for judo under WP:NSPORT which is a bit disappointing, and although he presently fails WP:NOLYMPICS in six months time he may do so, and imho I feel similar to Basement12 that the discrepancy between the recognition of Olympic and Paralympic athletes is a disgrace to Wikipedia, but as Mdtemp states that is a fight for another day. I created the article as I honestly thought that medalling at a European level is notable enough for an athlete. There are only two competitions above this level that this athlete can compete at, they are the Worlds and the Paralympics. He can't gain notability through other means as his sport is not professional, which is often the instrument used to deem if notability is met for sportspeople. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As article creator you are definitely allowed to vote at the AfD. I'm having trouble seeing the multiple significant independent sources required by WP:GNG. There's an article giving the results from the European blind championships (routine sports coverage), several links to judoinside.com (just results), a passing mention in an article names the 2016 British paralympic team, and a brief bio at the British judo site.  I do not think any of those are qualify for WP:GNG.  The best source is from the British blind sport organization encouraging visually impaired children to study judo and using Skelley as a case study--and even that says his biggest accomplishment was at the Junior Visually Impaired World Championships and junior events do not normally confer any notability.  I'm not sure that if he was a normal judoka he would be considered as having passed WP:MANOTE and many consider that essay too lenient.  I haven't voted yet because I'm hoping to see what I consider clear evidence he meets WP:GNG.  Right now I don't see that. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me towards WP:MANOTE, which I was not familiar with. Section 4 states: Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). This is something he has done on several occasions, medaled at international events to which he is 1st dan or higher. I understand the frustration at passing mentions, but this is the bane of para-sport. Even an all out world-beating powerhouse like Russian sprinter Evgenii Shvetcov will only pick up brief quotes here and there. I've also added further cites, but again with no in-depth discussion. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know it's unusual to go for a third relist, but reading the conversation to date, it sounds like there's reasonable arguments being made on both sides and we might still make progress towards consensus if I let this run another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as I agree with above comments that section 4 of WP:MANOTE is clearly passed and notability established, the guidelines on olympic notability should be changed as a matter of priority as it is discrimination against the paralympics that their notability rules are stricter, and a bad stain on the reputation of wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not voted yet - I think my position mirrors that of  Papaursa.  I think the idea of stain on wikipedia is a bit much.  Competition in the Olympics is presumed notable because it is competing at the highest level.  For the same reason competing in Junior Olympics does not have the same cache, as does other age dependent or other special groupings.  In this case one could ask would he be an Olympic athlete if sighted.  If this article does pass it should be on WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of your work Peter Rehse, but you are really missing the point of Para-sport if you are trying to equate those with a disability to having parity with an able bodied athlete if that disability was removed. That is not how we equate world class para-sport and actually shows the misunderstanding between notability in Wikipedia sport articles. If the tables were turned could we state that the world's number one judo competitor could retain his title if blinded, or even beat the present blind judo champion in his or her division. We are then playing "What If..." scenarios which no one can answer. Can we cut off a leg from Bolt and expect him to beat Peacock or Brown? A blind David Beckham, an Adrian Phelps with dwarfism. Disability sport must be judged completely separate from able-bodied sport for the sake of notability. They can not and should not be compared on a like for like basis, well not until the governing bodies do so. regards FruitMonkey (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep mirroring the comments above. I think it meets WP:GNG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.11.16 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.