Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Ackerman

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. Additional work and ref's have helped establish meeting WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Ackerman

From Notability/People and WP:ATH "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis added). So, I interpret this thusly: merely being an Olympic athlete, even the sole competitor for the UK in Wrestling is not sufficient grounds for notability. But, we'll let an AfD decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unable to complete AfD; hopefully another editor who agrees with the absurdity of this claim to 'notability' will complete the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've copied the comments from the talk page to this AfD and posted it for 71.139.35.97. Cunard (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to passing WP:ATHLETE, Ackerman passes WP:BIO. See this article from The Guardian, this article from BBC, etc. Cunard (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely re-write to indicate that Ackerman is notable as an Olympian and not, as the article currently suggests, as a logician, or else delete. The article describes Ackerman as "a British-American logician and wrestler." He has, however, no significant publications in philosophy or logic that I can locate. Article was PRODed on 13 July by IP User 71.139.35.97 with the concern, "Subject is not notable,vanity article,not a single publication beyond your thesis?" I nominated the article for Speedy Deletion later on 13 July under criteria A7, article on a real person that does not assert notability. Article creator User:OldakQuill placed a Hangon tag later that day and commented at Talk:Nate Ackerman that Ackerman competed at the 2004 Olympics, a fact I missed, probably since it is mentioned only in the last paragraph of the article. Still later User:Cunard removed both Speedy and Prod with the comment, "all Olympians are notable". Thanks are due to Cunard for completing this AfD. Cnilep (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken my own advice and re-written the article. Cnilep (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article has a number of reliable source articles written about him for his role as an Olympian (see Cunard's comment). Rewrite with focus on his role as an Olympian, per Cnilep. --Oldak Quill 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - athletic competitor at the highest elevels of an International sport, documented by multiple reliable sources; passes WP:BLP and WP:N. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the relevant guidelines. Any problems can be corrected by normal editing (though I don't think the article is that bad as it is). Zagalejo^^^ 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:Prof on lack of cites. Not notable enough as an Olympic competitor. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Per Cnilep’s comments and work on improving the article. Certainly does not meet WP:PROF, but I am pretty sure he meets the more general WP:BIO. I cannot comment on whether he meets any of the criteria for inclusion in WP as an athlete.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE, which is a much less stringent criterion than WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'll change that to Keep if a source is found for his participation in World Championships. Get Dumb 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [1] Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rewritten article places the proper emphasis on his athletic achievements vis-a-vis his academic ones. He clearly passes WP:ATHLETE, and the fact that he doesn't pass WP:PROF is not especially relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (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.