Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennart Ahlin


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. A big thank you to who sourced the article with reliable references  and demonstrated the subject is notable, Thank to all who participated in this discussion.(non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lennart Ahlin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The corresponding Swedish Wikipedia article also has (referenced) information on Ahlin noting that, in addition to his 1964 Olympic appearance, he  won gold in Swedish Championship skeet in 1959, was the Swedish champion in trap shooting in 1964, 1965 and 1966, and was awarded the Stora Grabbars och Tjejers Märke in 1964. That material could be translated and added to the en-wiki article, if kept.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOLY, along with the national champ. stuff that Ponyo refers to, above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NOLY does not subvert the “basic criteria” section of WP:NSPORT which requires significant coverage in multiple independent references. Scroll up on that page and read that section.4meter4 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - this meets WP:NOLY. It would actually be great to expand the article using old newspaper clippings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Check this out. I wish there was a way to identify what press article it came from.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would the keep voters please produce sources per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. NOLY is a subsection of NSPORT. And if you read the “Basic criteria” section, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is required. Simply saying notable without providing evidence isn’t a sound or rational argument based in policy.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't done anything to overcome the presumption of notability. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s not policy. We don’t presume things are notable, we prove they are notable through evidence. You can’t prove something isn’t notable with evidence. You prove something isn’t notable through lack of evidence. Where’s the evidence? The onus is on the keep voters to produce it.4meter4 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything in WP:N is about presumption. The community decides. And if you want to say an Olympian is not notable—if you want to community that this article should not exist—you're gonna have to show that there's no coverage. Show your work. What have you done to search sources from the relevant language, relevant location, relevant time period? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Read WP:SPORTCRIT which clearly states presumed notability is tied to evidence of sources. I did a WP:BEFORE search in pro quest and google books. No hits of significance, but granted I could have missed something. 4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely inadequate searches for someone from Sweden active in the 1960s. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And what would be an adequate search?4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Local newspapers from that time would be a good start. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See this is where the ridiculousness comes in. Where the problem becomes the researcher, and not the lack of evidence. Under this kind of logic we would never delete anything, because whether the sources truly exist or not, people will always say you didn't look in the right place and there must be something somewhere. Let's return to WP:SPORTCRIT, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" We still need a source for this article that matches that description in order to presume notability. 4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, presumptions shift the burden of providing evidence. It's on you. "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games . . . ." WP:NOLY. Olympians are almost always notable. You're making the extraordinary claim that this one is not. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of policy. It doesn't square with the actual language in SPORTCRIT in the opening statement. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that led to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). It's bad policy interpretation.4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of that works very well if the subject was born in the internet age. Every Olympian gets extensive coverage today. But shutting out those same athletes that were born in 1920 is an affront to an encyclopedia. It's harder to dig up the fact of gng in a foreign language, so stubs are made in the hope that someone more fluent can read the language in a local paper. Some old newspapers may not have been as well archived, but they do exist. An Olympian representing their nation is presumed notable for good reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Olympic competitors are presumed notable and the person’s home wiki shows that it is indeed the case.  Schwede 66  17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Follows all the norms, could be made better by expanding. Article is notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources from the archives of Svenska Dagbladet. I'm sure Elfsborgs Läns Annonsblad would have more, but I lack access to their articles from the 50s and 60s; this should be enough anyway. /Julle (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking like a landslide keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2021 (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.