Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech

I'm commenting on the talk page instead of the deletion discussion itself because this comment has little to no bearing on the notability or lack thereof of Dirngulbai Misech.

I would just like to point out that this deletion discussion seems to be an excellent example of Wikipedia's systemic bias at work.

Dirngulbai Misech is a swimmer from Palau. Palau is a small island country with a population smaller than that of the city I live in. Nevertheless, it is still a sovereign nation, and as such is deserving of a certain level of respect. It has a history, a language, a culture all its own. Dirngulbai Misech is the record holder for a number of national records in swimming. As such, she is to Palau what Katie Ledecky is to the United States (indeed, they are very close in age). Now, competing on the world stage, Dirngulbai Misech is not really competitive with Katie Ledecky, whose times are much faster than Dirngulbai Misech's, but still, on the national level she holds several records.

Compare List of United States records in swimming with List of Palauan records in swimming. The U.S. list has few redlinks, but the Palau list has few blue links, and one of those few is likely to be deleted.

The General notability guideline serves a purpose. Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, it's important that we don't just make stuff up and pass it off as true. Wikipedia strives to be, and wants to be taken seriously as, an encyclopedia, a good reference work; not a collection of random pages created by random people. However, GNG in this case is contributing to the systemic bias that Wikipedia desperately needs to overcome.

Palau has one news source; and that is all a country that size can be expected to support. However, GNG requires coverage in multiple sources. Each and every source that mentions Dirngulbai Misech can be discounted as not being enough to meet GNG; and I'm not going to refute that and say they are enough. However, I think and, in their attempts to show that the various sources available do meet the GNG threshold, are picking up on the fact that, for some countries, some time periods, some topics, sources that do meet the threshold are going to be hard to find despite the fact that the information in the articles is verifiable, and requiring an overly strict standard, while it does go a long way in preventing Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information, hinders its ability to become a reference work free from systemic bias.

I have no easy answers to this quandary. By and large, I think GNG is a good thing. However, I think this instance is one that clearly shows the shortcomings of our current approach to notability. I would like to argue for this article to be kept, but I can't, and I think that's a problem. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with much of what you say. I just feel that it's a feature, not a bug. Yes, indeed, the GNG is slanted in favor of people from heavily populated areas.  But you're just looking to replace one bias with another.  Why, for instance, should residents of Palau -- which isn't even a fully sovereign state -- be given more of a leg up when it comes to the GNG than residents of the town I lived the previous few years, the not-particularly-large shire town of my state's least populous mainland county, but with a comparable population to Palau's and likewise a single newspaper?  (With, as it happens, a language, history and culture, and no less worthy of respect.) The premise of WP:V is sound -- it's not how important you are, but how many people have heard of you.  I'm unsure of the benefit of replacing that with a bias in favor of microstates with seats in the General Assembly.   Ravenswing   19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)