- 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 keep. Speedy keep Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Yong-Cheol (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)
Delete Notability not asserted, seemed he competed but eliminated in first round. No independent or notable coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Speedy keep passes WP:ATHLETE, specifically WP:NOLYMPICS Beerest355 Talk 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable per WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Olympic competitors are notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. This isn't the first top-tier sportsperson this nominator has taken to AfD. May I suggest the nominator become more familiar with the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE? • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the WP:FAITH. I just don't think Wikipedia should be a collection of one-sentence articles. There are different schools of thought on that point. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]- It is simple to assume bad faith now because your nomination only pointed to the notability of the topic. Which means that you didn't care about notability, but only about how short articles are. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is always simple to assume bad faith, that's why you shouldn't do it. My Afd says notability not asserted, in general, if someone drops an article on wikipedia that's two sentences and it sits untouched for years, I don't think that's particularly encyclopedic. Far too many people want to write microstubs and then spend their time focusing on Pokemon or the GNAA. I simply don't think when notability isn't established that we should have hundreds of thousands of articles that are essentially one sentence lying around. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [3]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]- The issue here is that you don't search for reliable significant coverage before nominating articles for deletion. It makes more work for editors who do know how to follow the notability guidelines as well as WP:BEFORE. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue here is that you want to assume bad faith under the "I don't like it" school of thought. First, a quick google search shows pretty much no hits for this person. Second, have you RAT'd my machine to know what I'm doing before I AFD? UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]- My advice is to memorize the notability guidelines for everything that you nominate for deletion. WP:ATHLETE does not need significant coverage. Athlete articles only need one of those things verified by a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is that you don't search for reliable significant coverage before nominating articles for deletion. It makes more work for editors who do know how to follow the notability guidelines as well as WP:BEFORE. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simple to assume bad faith now because your nomination only pointed to the notability of the topic. Which means that you didn't care about notability, but only about how short articles are. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Olympic athletes seem to always generate enough press to pass WP:GNG among other notability thresholds already mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:ATHLETE quite handily. Nominator should have done their research first. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Snowball Keep - Meets WP:ATHLETE and based on the !votes above I do not see this leading to any other consensus other than keep. No sense in dragging it out any longer. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nominator's assertion that they have determined that there is "No independent or notable coverage" for an athlete who competed in two consecutive Olympic Games is beyond implausible and underlines the on-target statements in other comments here that the nominator's behavior is disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 21 June 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.