Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylar Park


 * 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.  So Why  20:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Skylar Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. According to WP:NCOLLATH, such athletes are notable if they . It seems to me that a gold medal in the 2017 World Taekwondo Junior Champion constitutes an equivalent of a national award, at least. Is this not correct? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am curious,, did you do a WP:BEFORE search? what were your search terms and what were the results, if so? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Better to look at WP:MANOTE - age specific competitions don't normally contribute to notability.PRehse (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any such suggestion in WP:MANOTE. Would you please quote the exact wording from that essay? (And do note that it is an essay, not a guideline) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability criteria number 4 in WP:MANOTE says "repeated medalist (as an adult black belt ...". Junior events have never been considered suffiicent to show notability in the martial arts or most other sports. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete At this point she doesn't meet WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE and I don't believe the references given are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I believe it's WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Lots of successful junior competitors have not repeated that success as adults. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * comment http://www.taekwondodata.com/skylar-park.ajzf.html lists for Park: 2 first place finishes, 4 second place finishes, and 2 third place finishes, for international events listed as "senior" (in addition to "cadet" and "youth" events). This hasn't yet been added to the article. Is this not a reliable source? Are 8 medals insufficient for notability? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is that none of her senior medals is from a major event. Success at the highest level would show notability, but the source seems to show that her first fight at most of these events was in the semi-finals, meaning there were only 4 competitors so everyone would win a medal.  I'm just not seeing enough to convince me she's WP notable yet. Papaursa (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NCOLLATH does not hand a person an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists; even if she does technically have a notability claim that passes it (and that seems to be up for debate in this instance), she still has to actually be the subject of reliable source coverage to actually get a Wikipedia article out of it. But three of the four sources here are directly affiliated ones — the website and instagram of her own home gym, and a press release from the league she competes in — and while there is one source that's fully independent of her, one source isn't enough sources. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better, but nothing here is strong enough to exempt her from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just found and added to the article two additional independent sources, both with significant coverage, one from Korea JoongAng Daily, and one from Inside the Games. The former of these mentions that Park is scheduled to compeat in a large senior event (which should now be over, but I haven't found any results listings yet). It says: If she has done well in that event, it may be relevant here. Can anyone find results?, , do you feel these added sources and this recent event are enough to reconsider the issue? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There were actually 16 divisions (8 for each gender). The "Inside the Games" article is actually reporting the results from last year's junior championships and it looks like routine sports coverage to me. The JoongAng article speculates about a fight that could happen at the tournament, but didn't and the fact that she's "hoping to win gold" doesn't distinguish her from many athletes.  As far as the Muju competition went, Park was defeated 18-8 in the round of 16.  Normally that is insufficient to show notability.  I'm still inclined to think it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , I think you misread WP:NCOLLATH. Like all the specalized notability guidelines, its criteria are alternatives to the WP:GNG -- if a topic passes a SNG, it need not pass the GNG to be considered notable. Not that ensures an article, there may be other reasons not to have one. But you seem to be insisting on a GNG pass as well. If that is to be required, why do we even have the SNGs? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SNGs are not an exemption from having to be reliably sourceable, because anybody can claim absolutely anything: wannabe-notable musicians regularly refer to their current single as a "hit" in their PR materials; writers regularly claim "bestseller" status for books which were never verifiably anything of the sort on any notability-conferring bestseller list, or claim to have been nominated for a Big Literary Award for which they never actually made the shortlist, but were merely "nominated" in the sense that their publisher submitted the book to the award committee for consideration; sportspeople often claim to have earned distinctions that don't actually count as notability claims; people of no notability whatsoever regularly try to get Wikipedia articles by stacking up insignificant awards on the order of "Local Citizen of the Year". So merely making a notability claim does not exempt a person from having to source that claim properly — virtually all SNGs, in fact, explicitly state that merely claiming passage of the SNG is not sufficient in and of itself, but that the claim still must be reliably sourceable to some degree of GNG-worthy coverage. SNG criteria are not alternatives to the GNG — the SNG criteria exist to clarify what gets accepted as a notability claim if it's properly supported by reliable sources, but do not exempt a person from having to have reliable source coverage just because the SNG is claimed to have been passed.
 * The difference between passing an SNG and passing GNG, in other words, is not "one requires reliable sources and the other doesn't" — they both require reliable sources, and the only difference is that it takes more sources to get "notable per GNG because media coverage exists even if nothing here technically passes any SNG" than it does to get "notable because the sources support an SNG pass". But neither type of notability ever exempts the claimant from having to have adequate reliable source coverage — SNG notability still depends on there being some reasonable degree of reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to suggest, and I do not assert, that SNGs confer unsourced notability. That would be absurd. What I think i said was that they were alternatives to the WP:GNG not to WP:V or WP:RS. Let me use an example. Suppose that WP:NSPORT says that winning an Olympic medal confers notability. There still needs to be a reliable source that shows that Athlete X won a specific medal at a specific Olympics -- official results would be best, but other reliable sources would do. However in that case, we don't need the kind of multiple sources and in-depth coverage that the GNG would otherwise require. Reliable souring for the medal is sufficient. Similarly, passing one of the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH (such as "won a national event"), if it is supported by a high-quality reliable source should be sufficient. But not if unsources or supported only by a poor source. I am sorry if my comments seemed to imply otherwise. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * comment I would not want the above discussion of SNGs vs GNG to district from the added sources i mentioned above. Do any of you think they help meet the GNG or the SNG? What about the apparently recently concluded event. Would that help meet the SNG if a good result can be sourced? Is it worth waiting for? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented above about the added sources and her tournament results. I'd say losing decisively in the round of 16 to a fighter who lost her next fight is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 3 July 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.