Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raúl Antoli


 * 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 redirect to Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Raúl Antoli

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

Antoli was a non-medaling Olympic competitor, so he does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. The one source here is a sports table with no actual prose on Antoli. Olympedia has an entry for him, but it is also a sports table with no prose. I was unable to find any other sources on Antoli at all, searching google, google books and google news archives. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Radioactive  (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Horse racing,  and Argentina. Radioactive  (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect if nothing can be found on him, the redirect to Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:PRESERVE, etc. unless other sources can be found, perhaps in Argentinian books written in Spanish. The source in the article verifies that Señor Antoli competed in the 1928 Olympics and so, failing notability, the article must be redirected. Why does the nominator need to have this spelled out to him nearly every time he nominates something for deletion that has been verified? Does he have a WP:IDHT issue? Indeed he does. He also needs to get into his head that PRESERVE is an integral part of WP:EDIT, the site's editing policy, whereas his precious SIGCOV is only a guideline. And, once again, despite all his bluster at ANI, he has been very quick today to AFD yet another article created by Lugnuts.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 14:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See this discussion. AfD is an appropriate location to discuss articles that might have a valid redirect target but should not exist as an article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Where else could I open a discussion on this article. It is clear that unilateral redirection is not supported, people object to that very vocally, so the only option we have is to take the matter to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics. There are two other valid targets, but they are both mentioned there so it isn't unreasonably difficult for users to locate them. I don't see any real benefit from such a redirect, but while there are no other Raúl Antoli's mentioned on Wikipedia there is no harm to having it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a redirect. I just know we do not need this as an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, tell us something we don't already know. Presumably JPL uses XFD on Twinkle to nominate articles for deletion? That's deletion, btw, not discussion. When he states his reason, why doesn't he begin it with the simple word Redirect? I rest my case.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just withdraw your nomination and make it a redirect.  D r e a m Focus  22:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - As discussed many times at AFD, AFD is an appropriate forum for discussing whether something should be redirected or not. A WP:SNOW-close for redirection should be a no-brainer though. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @FOARP @Dream Focus because he then argues that close and many closers are utterly worn out by the non stop c.f. User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_5 Star   Mississippi  15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That was about a different article that had multiple editors in the discussion favoring outright deletion. It was also over 3 months ago. Your post makes it look like it has any direct bearing on this specific discussion which is very unfair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Just Be bold and do that next time rather than waste a week and a ton of people's time at AFD. Smartyllama (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize every single time I have tried, it has been reverted. People more familiar with this particular set of cases explictly advise against doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Johnpacklambert Do the right thing, don't blame the hypothetical act you think some one else may take for doing the wrong thing. But, even if you redirect, are reverted, and bring the article to AfD, if you would mention redirect in the nomination, your behavior might be received as more appropriate. The more people see appropriate behavior, the less conditioned they will be to oppose your actions automatically. It is better to do something right than to do it fast. Jacona (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rredirect if no sources forthcoming - why this has to present such a constant difficulty is a mystery and a damn nuisance. Ingratis (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect per discussion. pretty clear WP:SNOWBALL also.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect Argentina at the 1928 Summer Olympics. I know this is jumping on the bandwagon, but redirect is exactly how these source-poor but obviously of interest articles should be handled. It should have been done boldly, but no one tried that before bringing it here for deletion, they should have taken the time to try. Jacona (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I followed the advice above to do exactly what was advised on Frans Kuijper. Guess what, it was reverted with not even a claim as to why my deep analysis of exactly why it did not meet inclusion criteria and should be redirected had any problems at all. It basically amounted to a personalized refusal to allow this redirect because I did not bother trying to redirect any other article today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @John Pack Lambert, so if something doesn't work one time, you feel you have no need to ever try it again. It may have you saved time, but definitely cost all of us time. If you do the right thing, every time, then over time, people will see you cooperating and begin to respect your work and in return will cooperate with you. But it doesn't happen immediately the first time you do the right thing. Try building trust. You will not get instant results, but over time you will get better results, and more congenially. Jacona (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the results of the other article, I can 100% gaurantee that if I had tried to unilaterally redirect this article exactly the same thing would have happaned as did with Frans Kuijper. That attempt to redirect was actually one done after this article, on an article with the exact same problems, the exact same lack of sourcing. There is no reason to suspect it would have turned out any diferent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not surprising that doing the right thing once, after doing the wrong thing hundreds or thousands of times, did not immediately get the desired result. If you are determined to improve your success in collaborating, you have to keep trying to collaborate, even when your first attempt fails. After people see you consistently trying to do the right thing, they will start coming around. If you immediately revert to your old ways, why should they come around? Jacona (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (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.