Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay Atanasov


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. More consensus for keep than drafify, as well as it passes guidelines after the major expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nikolay Atanasov

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

Nikolay Atanasov

This biography of an Olympic athlete was created under earlier sports notability guidelines, but no longer satisfies Olympic notability because the subject did not receive a medal. It does not satisfy general notability because it does not describe what third parties have written. The only reference is a database entry.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify as nominator to allow six months to find significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the nom, what do you think of the expansion that has been made to this three-time Olympian? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics,  and Bulgaria. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it not be easier to ask the creator directly for improvement when you don't even want it deleted? Anyway, a three-time Olympian, three-time World Championship participant, Balkan champion and nine-time national champion (in a country that holds a high level in athletics) meets WP:SPORTCRIT with the most flying of flying colours, so it's just a matter of finding the good stuff. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article fails WP:SPORTCRIT, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cbl62, thank you for your nomination. It may have failed SPORTCRIT point #5, but that is contradicted by WP:BASIC, which says that as long as sources have received significant coverage, they can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article – regardless of whether or not that coverage is explicitly linked in the article at any given moment.
 * The subject clearly meets WP:NATH as a multi-time national champion, which gives us a presumption of those sources existing. That presumption was correct, but nobody has found them in the past ten days because the subject had a wrong name recorded here – his Bulgarian name is not Николай Атанасов, but Николай Атанасов-Джоко. Searching for the former brings up no relevant results except for Olympedia (which also has the wrong name), searching for the latter brings up many: . I added some of the top results to the article, including significant newspaper coverage. I have fixed the name and will be voting to keep, though I will note that even if we weren't so lucky that Atanasov had a post-Internet career and his sources were easily searchable, he should have still been kept based on us knowing that the sources existed due to WP:NATH. --Habst (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep based on my reasoning above. --Habst (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't evaluated the new Bulgarian sources added to the articlee. However, Habst's argument to nullify WP:SPORTCRIT, prong 5, lacks any basis. I drafted and proposed prong 5, and it was adopted with broad support on a community-wide RfA. It passed with knowledge that there is no general requirement that SIGCOOV actually be present in the article, but with the intention to create an exception in the case of sports biographies  mandating the presence of at least one piece of SIGCOV and as a direct response to the flood of sports biographies (like the article under discussion) sourced only to databases. Unless SIGCOV is found and added, prong 5 is directly on point, and this article should not remain in main space (draftifiction until SIGCOV is found is another alternative). Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cbl62, thank you for your comment and I do greatly respect your contributions to policy. Wikipedia policy is, however, ultimately decided and enforced by consensus and not by any one person even if that person is the drafter and proposer of a policy.
 * Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), the "key change" in WP:NSPORTS2022 was the removal of participation-only criteria, which does not apply to the subject because he was a national champion. Furthermore, WP:BASIC can apply to a biography even if WP:SPORTCRIT would also apply, and WP:BASIC more univerally agreed-upon by community consensus than supplemental topic-specific guidelines.
 * An example of a similar dynamic was at Articles for deletion/Clive Sands, where it was argued that Sands should be deleted because he fails a supplemental guideline (WP:NSPORT) while passing a more general guideline (WP:GNG). This argument wasn't considered valid, because the more general guideline still applies. --Habst (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your one-man campaign for nullification of prong 5 is completely specious. The prong 5 proposal passed with the highest participation level and the largest majority of the votes. See closing comment: "This was the best-attended proposal and had the most agreement. There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. ... Supporters point out that it has the added benefit of reducing the number of one-sentence biographies based on database entries." So there you have it. You may not like prong 5, and you are free to start your own RfA to overturn it, but you can't just deny or nullify its clear language and force. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cbl62, thank you for your comment because I think debate makes Wikipedia better even when I do not agree. I actually do appreciate the value of prong 5 because I also don't want more one-sentence biographies only based on database entries; I just think it does not apply in this specific instance for the reasons above.
 * The point is moot anyways as there are several GNG sources both cited in the article and linked from the web search above, fulfilling the fifth prong. What do you think of the notability of the article on its own merits? --Habst (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't evaluate the depth of the Bulgarian sources you added, thus neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets WP:NTRACK as top 8 finisher at the World Championships. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify: per Robert McClenon request. BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
 * Source eval:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Comments !! Source
 * Primary, database bio || 1. "Николай Атанасов – СКЛА ЛОКОМОТИВ ПЛОВДИВ". atletikalokomotiv.com (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
 * Interview, primary || 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Джоко: Сега е моето време". Sportal.bg (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
 * Database listing || 3. ^ "Bulgarian Indoor Championships". GBR Athletics. Athletics Weekly. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
 * Database listing || 4. ^ "Bulgarian Championships". GBR Athletics. Athletics Weekly. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
 * Database listing || 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Nikolay Atanasov at World Athletics Edit this at Wikidata
 * Database listing || 6. ^ "Senior 2003: Long Jump men". World Athletics. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
 * Mill news about event || 7. ^ Blitz.bg/Sport. "Джоко шампион на България за седми път". Blitz.bg/sport (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
 * Mill news about subject opening a business || 8. ^ "Джоко стана бизнесмен". BGathletic.com (in Bulgarian).
 * }
 * BEFORE showed database listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Database listing || 6. ^ "Senior 2003: Long Jump men". World Athletics. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
 * Mill news about event || 7. ^ Blitz.bg/Sport. "Джоко шампион на България за седми път". Blitz.bg/sport (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
 * Mill news about subject opening a business || 8. ^ "Джоко стана бизнесмен". BGathletic.com (in Bulgarian).
 * }
 * BEFORE showed database listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mill news about subject opening a business || 8. ^ "Джоко стана бизнесмен". BGathletic.com (in Bulgarian).
 * }
 * BEFORE showed database listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Keep or draftify? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the major expansion the article is undergoing currently. Also noting that the source dismissed as an "interview" above by TimothyBlue has over 100 words (WP:100WORDS), including calling him one of the best Bulgarian track athletes and Loved by some and reviled by others, Joko [Atanasov's nickname] is one of the most interesting and eccentric personalities – it is guaranteed that there is further coverage of this out there, but already we seem to have enough (expansion proves WP:NBASIC, plus the one random source I clicked on is WP:SPORTBASIC pass). WP:DRAFTIFY is effectively a death sentence for articles without an interested editor who will try to save it; not seeing the point of doing it here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify per nom request. Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV right now to meet the WP:GNG. The sources are databases (1; 3-6), an interview (2) and brief coverage of routine events in which the subject was one participant (7 & 8). WP:100WORDS is an essay, not a notability guideline, and WP:BASIC is not met as the coverage is trivial. Let&#39;srun (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Let'srun, thank you for your vote because you have consistently challenged us to improve articles, and I think you have done a great service for Wikipedia. Can you please re-evaluate the following sources. I significantly improved the article by adding WP:THREE new sources. All three of these are only from the first page of Google search, so there is surely more to be found.
 * (note that this was originally published on deltanews.bg, the blogspot link is simply a free archive of the article)
 * @TimothyBlue, can you please review these sources as well. It is quite rare to see an elite long jumper born from a four-minute miler, and Joko has a very interesting story to be told if the sources are combed through more thoroughly. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that 100Words in an essay, but really, how in the world does that source not addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content? The fact that over 1,000 words can be written in the article make this a crystal clear pass of WP:NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @TimothyBlue, can you please review these sources as well. It is quite rare to see an elite long jumper born from a four-minute miler, and Joko has a very interesting story to be told if the sources are combed through more thoroughly. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that 100Words in an essay, but really, how in the world does that source not addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content? The fact that over 1,000 words can be written in the article make this a crystal clear pass of WP:NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough work and sources has been put in, had much of his career in a non-Internet era. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2024 (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.