Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Adelbi


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Irfan Adelbi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Someone who competed in the Olympics. No mentions of any medals won or achievements accomplished. Does not pass any notability guidelines such as WP:N or WP:GNG. And definitely a short article with no purpose otherwise. Striking out nomination, nominator withdrew though can't be closed due to a delete opinion Redditaddict_6_9 01:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Per this article, he scored 65/70 in an event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics_–_Mixed_trap
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion was improperly closed on 17 August. I'm reopening and relisting to ensure that it remains listed for at least a seven day period.
 * Keep. All Olympians are notable, regardless of whether they received a medal. Notability_(sports) says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've always thought that OLYMPICS reflect[s] the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have [...] participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. (emphasis mine). Are they instead always notable without any consideration to sources? IMO the subject specific guidelines supplement policy, but cannot supplant it. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The all olympians are notable rule does not make sense when we consider the history. Not every member of every tug-of-ware team was notable for example. We need to insist on better souring than is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - We have an article for every athlete who competed in Olympic tug-of-war. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All the medal winners, not all competitors, but both of you are arguing from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, without mentioning how this would affect notability. I think the question here is whether the presumption of notability applies in all cases, or if it's only used as an indicator that an athlete is likely to be notable. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is all the competitors, medal winner or not. See Tug of war at the 1908 Summer Olympics and Tug of war at the 1920 Summer Olympics--every competitor who participated has an article, the only red links are the two team members who came as alternates and never actually competed. Because OLYMPICS has been interpreted as meaning all Olympic competitors are notable. If you disagree with that proposition, fine, but an AfD on a single competitor probably is not the right place for that discussion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS, contrary to 's ridiculous assertion that the criteria doesn't say what it clearly and obviously says. Given his similar history at numerous other AfD's, I question whether he is truly here to build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if you disagree with NOLYMPICS, start an RFC. The references are sufficient based on that guideline. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator withdrew in the linked closure in the delist. I get the arguments here, and perhaps WP:NOLYMPICS is worth a discussion via RFC at some point here in the future.  As it stands now, the article is within the community-based consensus on what is notability for an Olympian.   Red Phoenix  talk  15:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – as stated in the above comment, I do support the article being kept. Those who have voiced Delete are wrong, as I had been before. Per policy, this shouldn't be deleted. The majority opinion is "Keep" and the only votes for "Delete" are uninformed. AfD should be closed now, though that isn't likely. Redditaddict69</b> 15:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't really argue with WP:NOLYMPICS, it's pretty straightforward. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS . Don't see how this is non-notable.  Kpg  jhp  jm  17:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per previous discussion passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan. Ross-c (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry I'm late to the party again, but I would ask the keep voters to please note: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. This is from the FAQ of WP:ATH. I'm not saying there is no coverage, but I've looked again and I haven't been able to find anything even approaching the level required to meet WP:BASIC, so unless the keep !voters have some pointers towards where sources might be found, I'm recommending delete. Courtesy pining everyone since this is a reply to all.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * AFD is not for righting great wrongs. If you have a problem with the implementation of WP:NOLYMPICS, namely that every Olympian is notable regardless of coverage, start an RfC. But that's what it says, and the subject meets that criteria and should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My problem isn't that you're using the guideline, my problem is that if you go to the top of the page of that guideline, click open on the FAQs section, and click open on the section that says How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?, the guideline clearly says that it does not replace GNG or BASIC. This is true, AFAIK, for ALL subject notability guidelines, not just WP:ATH, which WP:NOLYMPICS is a part of. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." Meeting WP:NOLYMPICS, or any other SNG, is enough. If SNGs didn't mean anything, we wouldn't have them. Smartyllama (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SNGs mean a lot. They show how to interpret GNG for, e.g. NCORP, and they tell us how likely something is notable before looking at the sources. I really don't see how you can discount the top of the page which says that they don't replace GNG and allow notability to the absence of sources though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But I don't see how you can discount WP:N, not to mention longstanding practice, which says that meeting a SNG is sufficient for notability. If you don't like that, open an RfC. Smartyllama (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was looking at starting an RfC, but it appears there is already one on this topic at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, as well as a more recent one here about WP:NSPORT specifically. Is one year sufficient to apply WP:CCC? EDIT to clarify: What I'm asking is if this AfD thinks consensus has changed since the NSPORT RfC.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sports RfC said further discussion is needed to determine "The appropriate result for an article at AFD about a sportsperson where they verifiably meet a NSPORTS criterion, but various levels of effort have not yielded significant sourcing (especially for older athletes or athletes from non-Anglophone locations)." To my knowledge, that has not happened. Perhaps it's time, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a no-consensus close passing this and all other similar cases to a RfC, nor am I opposed to taking more time to find appropriate sourcing. I may bump this to RfC myself if some of the other keep !voters comment or if I finally get rid of this blasted cold so I can decide how to do this properly. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. North America1000 02:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Competed in Olympics which is a thing of notability, and thus passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we get this closed already? It probably got missed earlier because of the issue with the relisting, but consensus seems pretty clear to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with a keep close, but what exactly is the argument here? WP:DEADLINE? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * to get this afd closed... it's been a week and everyone wants keep. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict</b><b style="color:#339900">6</b><b style="color:#3399FF">9</b> 02:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.