Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Owens


 * 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. Narrowly; but there is certainly no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Earl Owens

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Not competed at the highest level in an amateur sport. References only show that he holds records in "Masters" category, age 40-44. No other proof of notability. Tassedethe (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I located the results from the 1995 World Championships and have placed a reference to it. He DID compete at the highest level of his division of the sport and PLACED twice, therefore he does pass WP:ATHLETE.Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected this reference. He performed in the World Veterans Championship, not the World Athletics Championship in Gothenburg. Tassedethe (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please let me know if I am violating protocol by adding this comment; I have tried to find a more appropriate place to engage in a general discussion about the definition of "notability" in athletic performances, without success. It seems to me that the significance of great age-group performances has been dismissed without justification.  If you are running beer ads, you might argue that no one cares what some old folks do; but if you wish to acknowledge excellence, your criteria need some examination.  If a 70-year-old ran a sub-4-minute mile to win the World Masters Athletics championships, would this be unworthy of note simply because he wouldn't have placed in the Olympics?  Apparently this is what the current definition of "notable athlete" is saying.  Who decides this?  And if this is the wrong place to raise the question, where would be better?  JHBrewer (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A more appropriate place would be the talk page for WP:ATHLETE, or perhaps on the Village Pump WP:VP. When addressing notability of athletes performing at the Olympics or World Championships is usually enough for the person to be declared notable even if there are no other reliable sources that discuss the person in detail. This historically has been to ensure that athletes who performed before the Internet was prevalent, or who come from non-Western countries, get a fair deal (i.e reliable sources about them are likely to be offline, or difficult to obtain). By definition Masters athletes (i.e. performing in age limited categories) are not at the "the highest amateur level of a sport", and by current standard aren't regarded as automatically notable. If there are reliable sources that discuss them (per the WP:GNG guidelines) then, of course, they are (as a sub4min 70yo would probably be). Tassedethe (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - He has a world record and there is an Earl Owens who was in the NY Times quite a bit for running but I can't be sure if it's the same person. Doesn't meet the criteria put forth in WP:ATHLETE but it does seem like he's notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The athlete is a record holder at the veteran or senior level of the sport.  This is not the "highest level" as required by WP:ATHLETE.  To meet that criteria, he would have to compete at the Olympic Games or World Championships (not the Veterans World Champions).  Accordingly, does not meet the notability criteria required of an athlete.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do not casually cast off the World Veterans Championships (now called World Masters Athletics). It took an Olympian Rod Dixon 🇳🇿 to beat him in that competition and Owens beat Ingo Sensburg 🇩🇪 a three time winner of the Berlin Marathon in that World Championships.Trackinfo (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Per JHBrewer's argument and Trackinfo's information. "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment" [] Opbeith (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The notion that a world record in the Masters category doesn't represent performance at the highest level smacks of discrimination on grounds other than performance in competition with one's peers.  Performance level is judged differently between men and women.  Should women's achievements be ruled non-notable on the grounds that the events are sex-restricted?


 * Like other marathons and half-marathons, the Parkersburg Half Marathon(on various occasions functioning as the US men's and women's national half marathon championship) has categories for Men, Women, Men Masters, Women Masters, Men Wheelchair and Women Wheelchair. In 1989 Earl Owens won the Men Masters section in a record time that was seven and a half minutes behind the time of the Men's winner, Steve Kogo of Kenya, but two and a half minutes faster than the Women's winner, Diane Brewer.http://newsandsentinelhalfmarathon.com/page/content.detail/id/500030/Early-history-of-the-race.html?nav=5027  (it is only the principle of masters category-restricted racing being conducted at a similar high level to mens and womens category-restricted racing that I'm referring to here, Earl Owens' notability claim relates to his world records) Opbeith (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (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.