Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech


 * 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   delete. The general consensus is that referencing is not sufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dirngulbai Misech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dirngulbai Moreyna "UB" Misech is a 17 year old swimmer from Palau who has competed in International swimming competitions, most recently the 2015 World Aquatics Championships (OceaniaSport.com). Prior to this, she broke the Palauan record (her own) for the 100m butterfly during the 2015 Pacific Games (IslandTimes.us) and had broken a number of national records (400 meter freestyle, 100 meter butterfly, 1500 meter freestyle and 400 meter individual medle) at the Saipan International Meet (Island Times, SaipanTribune.com) She has also participated in the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (FoxSportsPulse) At first glance that doesn't seem too shabby for a 17-year old but above are near certainly the only sources which are not just results (another one from FoxSports Pulse talks about here co-winning the Annual IP&E Palau Challenge open water swim), some are borderline routine coverage with only the Island Times (which is a website, maybe newspaper, from Palau) to go into any kind of in depth biographical information. Furthermore that last source is the only one (with the Saipan Tribune at a stretch) that is not a primary source, Oceania Sport is an association of swimming federations from the region and FoxSports Pulse is a website dedicated to grassroots sport with the articles often written by concerned parties (such as the Oceania Swimming Association). What that leaves you is one independent source (the Island Times) and a scattering of primary sources, most of which are just results such as this one (PG2015.gems.pro) and I'm not making a selection, this is all the coverage you can find that is not her name and result. The question is, is one independent source, a scattering of primary/borderline primary sources enough to establish notability? In my eyes definitely not, otherwise you could create about a million pages on high school basketball players in the U.S. that get more press coverage than Misech. This article's subject is not notable for her sports career (her national records still had her placed near last or last in the Pacific Games) nor for the coverage she recieves and the article should therefore be deleted. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete- At this point of time, Dirngulbai Moreyna doesn't meet notability.Ireneshih (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSPORT - WP:SPORTCRIT "they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" Competed at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships and 2015 World Aquatics Championships, which is the highest level competition for swimming. Found this in about 10 seconds. Suggest the nominator reads WP:BEFORE.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found the same reference when I did my own basic Google search, too, but I immediately recognized that the subject Palauan swimmer is a member of the "Palau Swimming Association," and therefore the linked source (the Palauan Swimming Association's website hosted by FoxSports), although quite possibly reliable, is not independent of the subject and therefore cannot be used as a basis to establish the subject's notability. Please note that our general notability guidelines require significant coverage of a given subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which this is.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete You can vote only once * I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind but at least give reasonable arguments against deletion. Wikipedia policy is simple a subject must be notable, Dirtlawyer1 just gave you the definition, if you read the WP:NSPORT you linked, it clearly says in the opening statement: "[...] conversely, the meeting of any of these [sport specific criteria] criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", that's because its only likely to have sufficient sources. I don't see for one second how the sources above (that I searched, you've provided nothing in addition) meet the notability guideline, they are neither significant (only one article, at a stretch two, go past routine coverage), mutiple (at best you can find around 15-20 pages with her name, which don't constitute sources), independent (if you read above, I already said that FoxSports Pulse is not FoxSports, it's a website dedicated to grassroots sports in that it serves as a platform for organisations posting their own content, in this case the Palauan Swimming Association, or Triathlon association etc.).  --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You've provided multiple independent sources in your opening arguement! This person meets WP:NSPORT, end of.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article subject is a non-notable competition swimmer. At present, there is no specific notability guideline for competition swimmers to provide additional guidance.  Therefore, we must rely almost entirely on the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for our analysis of the subject's notability, which requires the following significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Let's parse those elements of the GNG standard:
 * significant coverage (more than pure statistics, more than one and two-sentence mentions, more than trivia, more than routine coverage per WP:ROUTINE);
 * multiple (at a bare minimum, more than one source that satisfies the standards for significant coverage, independence, and reliability);
 * independent (unrelated to the subject; no websites of organizations in which the subject is a member; no governing bodies of the subject sport such as college sports conferences, the NCAA, USA Swimming, FINA, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee, etc.);
 * reliable sources (as described by WP:RS, from which we usually exclude blogs and other content that is not subject to professional editorial review).
 * In the case of this subject, a Google search based on the subject's unusual name quickly reveals multiple online references to her name, but Google hits are not the standard by which we judge notability. A careful review of the online references shows that the overwhelming majority of them are simple results lists that include nothing more than her name, events in which she participated, and the times she achieved in those events, with little or no prose -- well within the definition of "routine coverage".  There are a handful of other sources that actually describe the subject's event results in a sentence or two of prose, but these do not rise to the level of "significant coverage."  Then there are one or two examples of significant coverage in non-independent sources, such as the Palau Swimming Association and Oceania Swimming Association, but these are disqualified as serving as the basis of the subject's notability because they are sports governing bodies, organizations in which the subject is a member, or groups which exist to promote the sport of swimming in those regions.  While I will do my best to maintain an open mind if other discussion participants present new evidence of significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so far nothing I have found in my own online searches, presented in this AfD discussion, or included in the existing article satisfies the GNG standard.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dirtlawyer1, but you're wrong. This person meets WP:NSPORT by competing at the top level swimming competition. And add to that all the national records they hold, that easily passes WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG has absolutely nothing to do with national records from the Australia, China or the United States, let alone national records from Palau. To recap, satisfying GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which have already been pointed out to you by several users (including, ironically, the deletionist nominator themselves).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, accusing another editor of being a "deletionist" is a personal attack per WP:NPA. Please strike that portion of your comment.  Thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep GNG appears met. Coverage from Island Times I think is 100% good.  The FoxPulseSport and OceaniaSport coverage was posted on their respective swimming federation websites.  However, it was actually written by The Reporters’ Academy UK.  Found this link for the  and I think its a judgment call if they are independent - they were apparently hired by the Oceania Sports Association, but I does not appear they had any control over the content.  However, to me I judge that they are independent since control over content is not show and they are non-profit.  I also like to keep in mind that Palau has two official languages, with three other state languages being official depending on the state, and Japanese being a commonly spoken language.  So basically there are six languages and I think its safe to bet that the editors are only looking at the English sources.  A good amount of coverage was found in looking in only a partial sphere of what is available.  In view of all this, I say keep.RonSigPi (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly dispute that the coverage of the Oceania Swimming Association and Palauan Swimming Association are independent of the subject. But for the existence of those swimming organizations, and the posting of articles about one of their member swimmers on their websites, there would be nothing approaching significant coverage except one article in a fairly obscure online newspaper.  FYI, there is apparently only a single Palau-based newspaper, the IslandTimes.us.  It's based in the only real population center, Koror, where 11,000 of the island's 20,000 people live.  And, no, we do not assume coverage exists.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to strongly dispute that the coverage is independent. I, however, do not agree with you (does it make more of an impact if I say I strongly do not agree with you?)  As mentioned above, the content was actually written by a third-party.  Yes they were hired by an interested part, but that can be said about all media.  The New York Times, Washington Post, etc. are owned by companies with varying interests & loyalties and make money by running ad space most often to companies.  That can influence coverage just the same, but they can be seen as generally remaining independent just like I think the Academy can.  Also, WP:GNG states "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."  I think you are taking a hyper-high standard of independent.  What I read, considering the examples give, is what a person writes and their team.  For example, a press release by Tiger Woods press agent is not independent.  However, an article by an international governing body - here the Oceania Swimming Association - is independent from the subject.  I would have no problem with an article written by the PGA Tour being independent.  If this were an article about the Oceania Swimming Association I would agree with you, but the subject here is Dirngulbai Misech a swimmer from one of the many nations of the organization.  Dirngulbai Misech has no control over what is said (unlike Tiger Woods press agent) and therefore I consider their text independent in view of what WP:GNG states on its face.  Also, please don't put words in my mouth.  I merely was pointing out a fact that I though would be worth note to the Admin that renders the decision.  I never said we assumed coverage exists, I was merely saying we were only examining part of the pool of sources available.  Its a worthwhile point, but any assumption drawn is from you.RonSigPi (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment re "independence" - Ron, we've recently deleted articles that relied on MLB.com and NFL.com to establish notability, and in the past we've deleted articles that relied on NCAA.com, college newspapers, conference websites and national governing associations. They're not independent media -- they have an interest in promoting their member athletes, and are nothing like truly independent media, regardless of who writes the article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Several editors" claiming significant coverage does not include me, if you actually read anything you'd see I listed the (rare) sources by due diligence (oh, you should try this thing called researching an article, it does wonders apparently) then clearly said the coverage was not significant. You're according too much importance to the independence issue - which considering the Reporters Academy was thanked for "the very positive angles you provided in your news articles" and clearly lists the Oceania Swimming Association as a client is a moot point - what also matters is significant coverage from multiple sources. Only one article goes in depth about the subject, that is definitely not enough for achieving notability in form or quantity, I can find any number of people who are talked about in local newspapers (which the Island Times is) with a few mentions from sporting federations, that does not mean they are inherently notable. As for making assumptions on putative coverage on completely hypothetical arguments (I doubt the media in Palau is equally active in all six languages, in all cases all but Japanese use the same script so results should come up anyway) it's not our role to prove to you coverage doesn't exist but your's (as the "apologists" to my "deletionist", need I say this is tongue-in-cheek) to establish notability (the very basis on which wikipedia articles are created or conversely shouldn"t be created). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done plenty of research, which you're fully aware of. This article meets WP:NSPORTS and there are plenty of sources (some of which you've provided!) too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Though swimmer has competed at international swimming events, swimmer is non-notable. FINA is known to give small countries that would otherwise never be competitive a chance to swim on the big stage. Also, I don't accept the sources that are presented. Most of them aren't in-depth and provides very little information. Philipmj24 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you "don't accept the sources" - they pass for coverage. It's neither here nor there what FINA do for small countries - it's a weak argument for deletion. And you also state "Most of them.." So some of them are in-depth.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahh, now I see how you "found" this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 has been very sneaky and has been canvasing, implying that people who don't agree with him are not "knowledgeable editors". I hope the admin who closes this takes a good look at this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, Lugnuts. Please read WP:CANVASS, especially the section entitled "Appropriate notification," for a better understanding of when notices about pending discussions are appropriate.  Phillip is one of the most active members of WikiProject Swimming, has created over 600 articles on international athletes, including over 400 on competitive swimmers and swimming competitions -- his competitive swimmer bios represent almost 10% of the total of 4400.  Phillip's knowledge on point speaks for itself.  If you don't believe that the most frequent editors of swimmer articles might have helpful perspectives on the notability of a lower level competitive swimmer, then your opinion also speaks for itself.  FYI, I left a neutrally worded notice on Phillip's user talk page, which was identical to the one I also left on the talk page of WikiProject Swimming at the same time.  Before you accuse me or anyone of improper canvassing, I urge you to review the actual behavioral guidelines of WP:CANVASS.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh YES, Dirtylawer. It's clearly canvassing. An editor who hasn't been around for ages, and you suddenly ping him to this discussion. That's pretty low and an obvious bad faith attempt to push your agenda through. Shame on you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, I made the decision entirely on my own without the influence of Dirtlawyer. Philipmj24 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep digging, Lugnuts, and it's just going to get more embarrassing for you. From his registered account in the last two weeks, Phillip has edited four separate articles about 2015 FINA world championship, including creating a new article about a 2015 FINA gold medalist: .  Phillip has a long and well established history of editing swimming articles from a string of easily identified IP addresses, and not just from his primary account, during the day and when he is away from his home computer.  In the past year, these IP addresses include (but are not limited to):


 * IP User:137.200.0.106 ;
 * IP User:137.200.1.109 ;
 * IP User:76.77.128.42 ;
 * IP User:76.77.128.38 ;
 * IP User:146.7.56.255
 * IP User:146.7.58.4.


 * These are just the ones from which he has edited his Phillipmj24 user page; given that these are dynamic IP addresses, I am quite sure that these represent just a fraction of the total. If I start sorting through American Olympic swimmers looking for IP addresses that geolocate to Springfield, Missouri or the Social Security Administration, I can demonstrate that he is probably the single, most active editor on the topic of competitive swimming.  Do you have any more accusations to make, Lugnuts?  And not that it matters, but it does look like Phillip -- from either his primary account or IP addresses -- has edited a lot more articles related to the 2015 FINA world championships in the last two weeks than you: !  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you did! Glad that's all cleared up.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Keep it WP:CIVIL, please.  Thank you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for providing me info on all his WP:SOCK activity! Doesn't look good for your sock friends/tag-team buddies now. Oh dear.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you've crossed the line, Lugnuts. In addition to demonstrating that you clearly don't understand the concept of "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS, you have now accused a fellow editor of sock-puppetry based on your clear misunderstanding of Sock puppetry. Before you speak further on the subject, I urge your to read and comprehend the Wikipedia policy to which I linked, which in brief, says the following:


 * The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account. Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor.

Bottom line: any registered editor may edit without being logged in provided they are not editing anonymously to "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt." If you make such an accusation again, without any evidence of misconduct, I will personally file the ANI report for violations of WP:NPA. Are we clear, sir? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutrally-worded notices of this AfD discussion have been provided, in accordance with the "appropriate notification" standards of WP:CANVASS, in the following locations:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming: ;
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports): ; and
 * User talk:Philipmj24:.

Additional neutrally-worded notices of this discussion may provided, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I never said anything about "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt." The bit of sock you need to look at is Sock_puppetry. You pretty much dug up the IP edits to avoid an SPI/ANI case against "Phillip". Very clever. I will notify various people about this discussion too. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although judging by the talkpage of User talk:137.200.1.109, it is being used for disruptive edits. Maybe you want to correct me on that too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will correct you, again, Lugnuts. Philip has an exemplary editing record on Wikipedia.  The IP address you noted above is a dynamic IP address at the Social Security Administration, where he has been employed for the past year.  Before 2014, he was a college student in Missouri, after serving his country in the U.S. Marine Corps.  I can also find dynamic IP addresses that geolocated to Springfield, Missouri, and before that, those that were registered to the U.S. Department of Defense before his college days.  He has been editing Wikipedia swimming and Olympics articles longer than I have been onwiki.  There's nothing improper about constructively editing from an IP address, nothing "clever" or improper here; just your repeated assumptions of bad faith contrary to WP:AGF.  If you have any more questions about the WP:SWIMMING gang, including pertinent subjects about the notability of competitive swimmers, do feel free to keep asking questions.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just for the record, I have three registered alternative accounts myself:
 * 1. User:Dirtlawyer2: Olympics;
 * 2. User:Dirtlawyer3: Sock Hunter; and
 * 3. User:Dirtlawyer4: All-Americans.
 * Feel free to investigate all of them, too, if it makes you happy. All of them are registered and disclosed and being used for legitimate purposes, including the maintenance of very large watch lists for Olympic swimmers, college sports articles targeted by a long-time sock puppet, and college football All-Americans.  But please cease and desist with the false and unsupported accusations of canvassing and sock-puppetry.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot about his background. I don't really give a shit about a failed Marnie or whatever he is supposed to be. Of course they have a legitimate reason to edit logged out. Nothing odd about that at all. Ever. Haha, swimming gang. Glad you said that and not me.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer - nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Don't collapse comments again. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Eeeesh. Without respect to the accusations flying around, the subject doesn't pass the GNG, pure and simple.  Of the various sources cited, all but one fail.  One of the Island Times cites, both of the FoxSportsPulse cites, the Saipan Tribune cite, the Oceania Sports cite, all of these very plainly fail under WP:ROUTINE -- these are typical meet coverage pieces, where the subject is mentioned only casually and fleetingly, mixed in with the results of numerous other swimmers.  The Pacific Games page is a simple table, and does not provide "significant coverage" to the subject at all: its information can certainly be used to verify facts, but it cannot be used to sustain notability.  I'm failing to find any mention of the subject at all on those reportersacademy cites, and if someone might be so kind as to point one out, I'd appreciate it.  The only cite that provides extensive non-routine coverage of the subject is this Island Times piece -  - but there's one small problem: what about this paper, with no prior mention on Wikipedia, does anyone claim meets standards for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy, and what evidence does anyone proffer to back such a claim up? (In the best case, that's only a single source.) As far as NSPORT and SPORTCRIT go (err, Lugnuts, they link to the same guideline, and I'm unsure how you arrived at the premise that they're separate), I think Lugnuts is being a bit disingenuous.  NSPORT sets out no explicit default guideline for all other sports not otherwise mentioned; there isn't one, and such athletes must meet the GNG ... which in fact ALL athletes must do nonetheless.  There is no explicit criteria covering swimmers or divers, and if there had been, Lugnuts, as you're implying here, you wouldn't have sought comment on creating one as you did in this diff, four days ago: .  As such, no presumptive notability can be claimed. Finally, to Ron's suggestion that there might be non-English language sources out there: as I expect everyone is well aware, it is not acceptable to speculate that such sources might possibly exist, and then expect such speculation is by itself a reason to retain an article.  One must demonstrate that they do, and this being a BLP, it's very firmly the case that inferences or conjectures on that count cannot be made.   Ravenswing   22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment See the talk page for a lengthy comment about this deletion discussion, GNG, and systemic bias. It is neither an argument to keep the article, nor an argument to delete the article, which is why I left it there rather than here. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:54, 19 August 2015 (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.