Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cline


 * 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. Fails WP:SPORTS and WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

John Cline

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Master's cyclist with results that do not satisfy WP:NCYC or broader notability guidelines (WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG). No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in either the sources given or in searches. Available coverage is either simple race results or passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have read all the pertinent information and this is my take on it.

1) Being a CAT1/2 racer at this level of competition already qualifies as being notable. Being a master is irrelevant when racing professional fields. 2) The availability of references in cycling, depending on the type of racing being done, is set in the references provided. Some tracks, because of organization issues, are sketchy with results making validation difficult. 3) Being world ranked for two years straight is also notable as defined by Wikipedia. Actually, every person on that rank list is notable. To reach that achievement and hold it places you among the best in the world. 4) Two national championships, a world ranking and a state championship, while simple results, are what validates racers and their accomplishments. Random searches of any racer from any of the organizations mentioned would still result in less than significant coverage by most of the racers.

This: competed in a UCI World Tour; competed in a Grand Tour or Monument; competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships).

This very limiting, but even so, participating in many UCI 1/2 events and beating a nation in any race to get a world ranking would, while not wikipedia notable, is notable nonetheless.

I also reviewed (1) multiple instances of significant coverage, (2) in independent sources, which are (3) reliable. Significant coverage in racing is sketchy sometimes we, as racers, depend on UCI and USAC as the reliable sources for upgrades and recognition.

Newspaper articles and the like dont necessarily cover all the participants of race especially those who participate, gain UCI points and a world rank but don't actually win the race.

These are my arguments. I believe that the 597 people I am ranked with in 2016 are also notable as well. Given the age difference and a ranking of 508, with 40 points beating Poland in 2016, out of 597 is completely notable.

Thank you for your time. Mickeywrangle (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Mickeywrangle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, this is interesting. I have read all the mumbo jumbo and I have to say that the policies seem to be more of an issue than this article.

Frankly, some unknown bike racer over twice the age pretty much of everyone on that UCI list is pretty impressive. While I get what Wikipedia is doing here to keep standards high and all but I think the idea of notability is really bordering on elitist. I am not trying to be insulting or anything but just hear me out.

Standards are fine and all but only focusing on those individuals who are set in that very small set of criteria (for anything not just cycling)seems a limiting to factor to the whole concept of this site. I find that the more obscure references on Wikipedia round out all the information this site provides. I find it refreshing when this site throws me information I would have never known about except some random person decided to add something here.

But this guy? He is paired up against Hugo Haak and Eric Engler? Frankly, and I am assuming here, he got beat badly, but to represent his country on that level, again, is impressive.

Also, and according to your web page, "Pre Professional cyclists to have raced at the top level races are considered notable..." which it clearly looks like this guy did at least a couple times. And not to distract...Eric Engler's wiki page only says he participated in the 2015 World Track Championships. There is literally only a start list on there about his history and this article is robust with facts about his roll and status on the world cycling stage. So a start list is ok? But actual results aren't?

Anyway, that is my two cents for what its worth...seems like a little double standard here.

Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward1984u (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Edward1984u (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment This comment is longish so as to provide some policy information for new users. "Notable" has a slightly different meaning on Wikipedia than it normally does in English discourse. The meaning of the term on Wikipedia is very specific: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article emphasis in original .  No evidence has yet been presented that these three criteria are satisfied by any of the coverage, what little there is, of John Cline.  The information presented above is unsourced and therefore does not comply with the policy on verifiability -- a core content policy.  Verifiability of information is also mandatory for biographies of living persons.  Even presuming the accuracy of that information, many of the claims are not indicative of notability under our policies and guidelines.  For example, being a UCI Cat 1 or 2 cyclist is not evidence of notability, as there are literally thousands of such racers.   Being UCI ranked 561st out of 626 track riders is also, absent other sourcing, not a recognized criterion for notability.  Protesting that those criteria are "very limiting" misses the point.  The community has decided through consensus that the criteria should be limiting.  The remainder of this is essentially special pleading that the article should remain just because the author is impressed by the subject.  If there is any sourcing that can be provided to establish compliance, then the situation of course changes.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Likely delete without prejudice The notability rules for amateur athletes are a tad fuzzy - but the current sourcing appears insufficient to put this one across the finish line.  That said, it is entirely possible that the person does meet the guidelines for amateur notability, just that the current sourcing is insufficient.   We have had quite non-notable athletes survive AfD, including any athlete who has been a member of any Olympic team in any sport at all, even if they were abject failures in sport .  Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for cyclists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2017 (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.