Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Mendoza


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Miguel Mendoza

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Two-time Olympic swimmer who did not medal. Only one reference currently in the entry. No presumed notability under current WP:NOLYMPICS standards nor any WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's a gold medalist at the Southeast Asian Games. (The article should have emphasized this instead of his participation in the Olympics.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Tito Pao, this person passes WP:ATHLETE. // MitYehor (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MitYehor, for my information could you please point to the part of NATHLETE that backs this? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current WP:ATHLETE guidelines, as the stand, are too American-centric (or American-influenced centric). Under those criteria and considering Philippine conditions, athletes who won at national school/collegiate competitions like the UAAP or NCAA or the Palarong Pambansa (because of WP:NSEASONS) would be worthy of articles, as well as the likes of Margielyn Didal and Onyok Velasco (because of WP:OLYMPICS), but not anyone who won the events from the Asian Games or South East Asian Games. (Neither would Commonwealth Games medalists.) It is not only the Americas or Western European leagues or Olympics that deserve to have articles of winning athletes. The current guidelines ignore/omitted the possibility that even continents or subcontinents can have Olympics-style events and some of these events' winners would eventually go move on to higher levels of competitions, even the Olympics perhaps. (See Hidilyn Diaz, whose article was already around since the time that she was just a mere participant at the 2008 Olympics and when her highest award was a bronze medal at the 2007 SEA Games...under your argument, her article should have been deleted even though it took her 13 years before winning a gold medal. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My argument is that absent a special notability guideline, current consensus requires demonstration of significant coverage: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline." (From WP:ATHLETE, emphasis in the original.) So I do not see how this entry yet satisfies consensus: there are now three secondary sources in the entry, but one includes only a single sentence about the subject and another just three sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the argument be for expand then instead of delete? --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s incumbent on people who think a subject should have a standalone article to show that sufficient sources exist, per WP:GNG and WP:NRV. What you propose would mean literally every topic just needs expanding, regardless of whether sufficient sources exist to meet our notability standard. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Explanation: WP:ATHLETE doesn't have a swimming-specific discipline guideline, BUT making an analogy from other disciplines like WP:SKATER or WP:NBAD, winning a gold medal at an international competition such as Southeast Asia Games would warrant article preservation. Is your main argument that this figure doesn't pass WP:GNG? MitYehor (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I say, my argument is that absent a special notability guideline that offers the presumption of notability, then an entry needs to pass GNG. Lenticel has turned up sources I was unable to find; honestly I still find it somewhat borderline, for most BLPs this level of sourcing might not pass AfC for instance but it’s certainly a significant improvement. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tito Pao's findings -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG with Philippine Star and Manila Standard both WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Jevansen (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep = plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources including newspapers of record such as New Straits Times and multiple Philippines newspapers. Winner at SE Asian Games. I don't understand why a simple search was not done before nomination by an experienced editor, but we all make mistakes. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearian: please do not presume; Miguel Mendoza is a common name and I went through four different iterations of searches turning up nothing about this subject. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My nomination specifically mentions that I looked for coverage. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ATHLETE per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2023 (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.