Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Speed

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Speed

edit
Ian Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are few newspaper sources. The sources that do are routine. They do not qualify under IAAF because IPC World Championships are not that. Consensus has been disability athletes need to either pass WP:GNG or win a Paralympic medal. I'd be all for changing that, but the discussion should be established on the sports notability page unless there is an WP:IAR rationale I am not seeing here or a reason to apply those guidelines here. LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I declined this in WP:AfC because it was brief, but going off WP:NTRACK indicated that notability was established by competing in the Paralympics. It did not occur to me that the term Olympics would exclude the Paralympics without it being made explicitly clear in context. I removed the PROD on the understanding of the WP:ATHLETE guide as it is written rather than with any knowledge of the discussions that led to the consensus described above. Under that logic Speed had passed WP:NTRACK even if he failed the WP:NOLYMPICS (which admittedly I hadn't checked because I thought he'd already passed WP:NTRACK) Rankersbo (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't claim to have any expertise on the question of notability, so I'm happy to leave the final say to others. However, there does seem to an issue here of whether Wikipedia's policies are being applied consistently. For example, there are articles on many similar Paralympians who have not won medals - e.g. Sam Harding, Jake Lappin, Sam McIntosh, Matthew Silcocks, Lindsay Sutton, Jack Swift, Brydee Moore, Torita Isaac, Erinn Walters and so on. My starting point is that there should be parity of treatment - either keep them all or delete them all. DanielDoyce (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ DanielDoyce, As the primary writer of most of those articles, I think they would likely pass under WP:GNG. If you removed the APC, Athletics Australia, and ASC links, you would have at least 5 or more newspaper sources for each article. When writing about Paralympic athletes who do not clearly meet notability standards, I try to make sure they pass WP:GNG. If I pruned the article to only newspaper sources for Speed, what content would be left? Yes, I really, really, really wish the standards were the same for Paralympians as they were for Olympians, but they are not and you play the hand you are given. :/ WP:NSPORTS would be the place to advocate for a change in the guidelines regarding presumed notability. Good luck as I have been there, done that and been unsuccessful. If you think the articles you cited do not pass WP:GNG, please nominate them for deletion yourself. -- LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ LauraHale, I think your issue is more about referencing than notability. In any event, I have now added more references so the answer to your question about how much content would be left is "most of it". DanielDoyce (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ DanielDoyce, No, they have to do with notability. IPC World Championships for Athletics do not count towards notability, nor does the mere fact that a person competed at the Paralympics count. Thus, for we are left WP:GNG. Before nominating this article for deletion, I searched Google News, Trove and Newsbank. (I have pretty good knowledge of and access to Australian sources as an Australian sport related PhD student.) I also checked the archives for the Canberra Times, The West Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. I found no sources that would not be considered routine. For me, GNG/notability requires generally at least 5 to 10 newspaper sources of which one generally provides extensive coverage. Your sources: "Ja, Cystal. "Aussie Paralympic athletics squad named". The Age, i July 2008." This is routine and provides few details about Speed. I cannot access the following source but it does not appear to be completely about speed: " "A guiding light at Beijing Bird's Nest". Australian Jewish News, 12 September 2008." This leaves ""Exceeding the Speed limit". Melbourne Weekly Eastern, September 2007, p12." a regional weekly newspaper as the only source fully about Speed. Then two routine references. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Compare the coverage in this article to the articles you cited. -- LauraHale (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the article. From what I now see, it looks like this was an honest mistake. Mr. Speed's best claim to notability, unless I am very much mistaken, is his participation in the Paralympics. Per WP:NOLYMPICS,
Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic 
games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.
By my reading, this is written to explicitly exclude paralympian non-medalists who do not meet any other guidelines. Mr Speed clearly fails the WP:GNG. The only other plausible inclusion criteria is WP:NTRACK. I have not seen evidence that he passes any of them (although this was where my error in the initial review occurred). I am left with the conclusion that unless more evidence can be found, Mr. Speed is not notable under current policy. Of course, we can change the policy, which is a separate discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do we want to place this AfD on hold, and start a discussion over at wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) in order to hammer out what the notability guidelines should be before we start deleting articles based on those notability guidelines? Tazerdadog (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor that, but the last time that discussion was had, it came down to "Athletes with disabilities are just not as inherently notable." They want to make the guidelines have few caveats, not more. Beyond that, while a 2012 Paralympian might be inherently notable, a prior generation Paralympian is unlikely to be so even with a medal. The question then comes down : does the project inherently desire these types of articles? (I would favour yes but I am not going to try to force my view against consensus, which NSPORTS has not been inclined to give.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Speed&oldid=1070407801"