Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Álvarez (sprinter)

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 no consensus. While the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, they aren’t exactly convincing. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Álvarez (sprinter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alvarez does not meet the inclusion guidelines for Olympians. We also lack any sigcov. Let alone the multiple examples of indepdent sigcov that is required by GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple medal winner, including gold, therefore meeting WP:NATH and WP:SPORTBASIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these standards require that any article have multiple sources to show notability. There are no sources on this article that meet the standards of Sigcov. I am also not convinced that every medal at the level of a country that is called "silver" or "gold" is actually a sign of notability if it is won. We have to show that the competition in question actual received some actual reliable source coverage, which has not been shown for any of the competitions where this person won a medal. Votes like this by Lugnuts are exactly why many of us want to scrap Sports SNGs entirely, because they are being consistently abused to try and keep articles without Sigcov. In the case of Lugnuts he has been told over and over again that these SNGs require that subjects for which we create articles also pass GNG, and he has consistently ignored this advice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NTRACK. Likely to be non-English coverage at the time which will now be inaccesible. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I was unable to find anything to meet WP:SIGCOV, I agree with NemesisAT that this meets criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK because Alvarez did complete in the Olympics: [1]. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sport notability guidelines say that the subjects must still have Sigcov. They are not an end run around the requirements of GNG, just a suggestion of what is likely to meet GNG. Plus there is currently a supported by the mass number of people participating proposal to drop the Olympics prong from athletics guidelines in line with the decision last year that only Olympic medalists are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should make our decision based on what WP:NATH currently says, not on what it might say in the future. If NATH changes, we can re-visit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: while we're at a numeric keep, the votes aren't in line with current policy requiring significant coverage. Relisting for time to find said coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets NTRACK, also won other medals. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional delete unless significant coverage can be provided (I have a hard time finding anything, as results often lead to Manuel Álvarez Bravo...). A few editors enthusiastically sustaining a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the requirement for significant coverage (which is what NTRACK is supposed to be an indicator of, not a guarantee) does not mean that the community accepted guidelines stop applying. WP:IAR also says that rules should be ignored if they prevent improving the encyclopedia. In this case, even if NTRACK was somehow a valid notability criterion, I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing; and thus it would be an improvement to the quality of the encyclopedia to remove sub-standard content. Thus delete per the already mentioned failure to find content which would be sufficient to sustain an encyclopedic article (this is the whole raison-d'etre of the notability guidelines); the blatant fail of WP:NOTDATABASE (as an article based entirely on databases, well...); and WP:IAR as argued. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic fails NTRACK as it lacks the level of coverage (= GNG) mandated by that guideline ("The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline"). If there is likely to be non-English coverage, then the article is to be created after this is found, not before. Avilich (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NATH (a.k.a. NTRACK). I am not convinced by the interpretations above that seek to effectively undermine NATH. Why does NATH exist if it says nothing different to WP:GNG? Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some citations to the official 1933 IOC report, which is conveniently digitally archived, about his 1932 Olympics appearance. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sound like primary sources to me, which we are not supposed to be using to build articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATH is only a predictor (not a very good one at that) of whether GNG will be met, it's not an actual standard of notability. And the sources you added are primary, they don't confer notability. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have followed WP:PRIMARY appropriately. Any concerns about edits to the article can be tackled on the article. Above, it was suggested that I do not see how having a two sentence article, basically copied from databases, and with no indication that anybody has or will spend time improving it up to encyclopedic standards, is a good thing: well, I, a random new editor to this article, took a bit of time, and I've now expanded the article a little, without copying from databases. I didn't do a lot, but Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and this article can improve over time. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is notability, not regular editing, and the status of the article and sources have not changed since the beginning of the AfD. Avilich (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant achievements in major sporting events, and deleting this would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.