Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Sands


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Clive Sands

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable. Per lack of inclusion @ WP:NSPORT, school records alone are insufficient.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bahamas.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG with multiple pieces of significant coverage, see e.g. Des Moines Tribune, Ames Daily Tribune, Argus-Leader and The Courier; safe to assume there's coverage in his native country as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, thank you for the nomination and thanks to BeanieFan11 for providing the above sources. I added some of the info from those into the article, there is significant legacy media coverage of Sands -- not just listing of his record but coverage of his background, will try to investigate these sources further. --Habst (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: meets none of the criteria listed in WP:NTRACK. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is what matters, not WP:NTRACK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: the General notability guideline, as the name implies, is a set of general guidelines that apply by default when no subject-specific notability guidelines exist. As luck would have it, we have WP:NSPORT, WP:NATHLETE and WP:NTRACK, all of which apply in this case, so according to WP:SNG they take precedence over the default WP:GNG and WP:N. That is why we have subject-specific notability guidelines in the first place. Owen&times; &#9742;  09:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works (FWIW, I would agree with you I'd like to see it work that way, but since WP:NSPORTS2022 the page has made little sense with little impact); from NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline ... The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted – there are more ways to notability than simply passing that set of criteria; Wikipedia: WP:Athlete is not exclusionary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing WP:NSPORTS2022 to my attention. Due to my limited involvement in sports-related articles, I somehow managed to not come across it. I guess we have to work around a broken NSPORT set of guidelines. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @OwenX, thank you for your vote because it challenges us to think about the article differently. However, I would say that WP:NTRACK (and WP:NATHLETE which is a redirect to the same section) actually does not apply here, because NTRACK excludes Olympians from its criteria (see point 1, "outside of the Olympic Games" and none of the following points mention the Olympics at all). This means that we need to go to WP:SPORTBASIC, which I believe it passes because the newspaper sources are non-database (pt 1), non-fansite (pt 2), non-primary (pt 3), independent (pt 4), and the article includes such a reference (pt 5). --Habst (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NTRACK item #7 specifically talks about the Olympics. Your assertion is incorrect. But even if we rely solely on WP:SPORTBASIC, things look iffy for Mr. Sands based on existing non-primary coverage. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @OwenX, thank you for your reply. NTRACK#7 does not refer to Olympians because the NTRACK policy as a whole does not apply specifically to Olympians -- it says nothing about them. It says, Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics -- this is referring to the event (i.e. 100 metres) being in the List of athletics events, not the athlete w.r.t. Olympic placing. There are no points in WP:NTRACK pertaining to Olympic qualification or placing, both of which Sands has achieved. --Habst (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Thank you! I wish they used language that was less obfuscatory. But then what is our basis for establishing notability - the Des Moines Tribune?  Ames Daily Tribune?  Any way you slice it, there just isn't the kind of significant coverage you'd expect for anyone--athlete or otherwise--who is notable. Owen&times;  &#9742;  17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Des Moines Tribune was one of the two largest newspaper in the state of Iowa and had a good national reputation. There is also coverage in the Argus-Leader, the largest newspaper in South Dakota, which is noted by Media Bias/Fact Check for having high credibility. Notability does not stand and fall with someone getting coverage in the New York Times. Alvaldi (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True, we don't need the New York Times. Any of the hundreds of reliable sources in this list would do. But even if we accept the Des Moines Tribune as a reliable source, which I do, the 61 words it devoted in 1974 to the events are enough to verify the facts, if they were to be included in another article, but they do not really meet the "significant coverage" threshold we generally require for a standalone article about an athlete. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage listed above. And honestly, the implication that an article can pass the general notability guideline but fail a supplemental guideline and thus should be deleted is and always has been preposterous. Alvaldi (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (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.