Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Kar

: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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Liberia at the 1972 Summer Olympics. as a viable ATD. History is preserved should access to archives come to fruition and sourcing is found. Star Mississippi 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Edward Kar]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Edward Kar}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Edward Kar}})

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are databases. This [https://www.goteamliberia.com/liberia-at-olympics/ source] is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those arguing for keep should not invoke NEXIST but actually provide sources. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: @User:LibStar, you are free to disagree on the merits acting in good faith, but you can't pre-empt invoking a guideline with well-established community consensus. What do you think about the NEXIST rationale provided here? --Habst (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::The only non database aource here is a 1 line mention. Notability is clearly not met here. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I understand that perspective from the sources currently in the article, but what about coverage in physical Liberian archives that nobody here has been able to check yet? --Habst (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Nothing but databases comes out when you look for information online, if someone knows about a non-online source, please ping me FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clear case for delete of this database created stub. The NEXIST argument is spurious. We have no sources and this should go. The PROD should not have been contested without some evidence that sources exist somewhere. Lugstubs really need to be treated together and more efficiently. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Habst. I am mindful of two facts: 1) the subject is African, and as many of us know, most African sources (specifically older RS) have not been digitised yet and made available online, but are available offline at local archives e.g. national records and local libraries. 2) Due to the age of the subject and the era he participated in sports at an international level and setting a personal best, he would have been covered in the local press of Liberia, and accessing those old newspapers which aren't available online would demonstrate notability. Just because we can't find sources online does not necessarily mean a subject is not notable. It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes. The database sources cited are international, with huge budgets, and have an online archive as well as offline. I would not expect the same for a local African newspaper especially at that time, and long before the internet age as we know it today. The very fact that the subject is on their database - and took part at an international level, and set a personal best and national record, demonstrate some notability. Arguing that the subject is not notable is one thing. Arguing that they are not notable because one can't find online sources is something else. WP:NEXIST is very clear on that, and it is a fundamental part of our policies as well prevent potential systematic bias for the reasons I've outlined above. Tamsier (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a requirement that athlete articles cite a source of SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. NEXIST has less, and less recent, community consensus and anyway doesn't even apply when notability is challenged. Pure database sources are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability and appearing on them is 100% irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :@JoelleJay, NEXIST can still seldom apply when notability is challenged per the text of the guideline, {{tq|"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive"}}.
  • :Database sources can of course contribute to notability if they evidence that SIGCOV exists; for an extreme example, a database entry saying "X athlete was covered in Y newspaper" could be considered even if the article from Y newspaper wasn't accessible to us. So database entries saying that a subject achieved something newsworthy could be notability-indicating by the same thought process.
  • :For biographies in general, there is no requirement that sourcing be cited in the article; only that it exists. The recent shift that you reference is actually away from subject-specific guidelines in general including WP:SPORTCRIT, which should help the case for this article because then we can rely on the more subject-neutral WP:N and NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ::Pure database sources do not count towards notability. Unspecified sources do not count towards notability. {{pb}}The guideline for biographies explicitly states: {{tq|Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline).}}{{pb}}You are deliberately mischaracterizing the practical outcome of NSPORTS2022, which has had continuous overwhelming support as evidenced by the thousands of sportsperson articles deleted on that basis. JoelleJay (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :::If a database sources indicates that SIGCOV exists somewhere with specificity, it can be used to count towards notability per WP:NEXIST. This applies to any type of source, actually, and not just database sources.
  • :::I agree with NSPORTS2022 to the extent that it deprecates subject-specific notability guidelines such as the one you quoted in WP:SPORTCRIT, and I don't see how this is a mischaracterization.
  • :::I have great respect for your contributions, and I hope that you can treat me with the same good faith that I treat you as we're both trying to improve the encyclopedia. Saying I'm "deliberately" mischaracterizing something that's complex and can be interpreted in different ways is, in my opinion, not extending good faith. If you disagree with the characterization, then please dispute that instead of making personal comments. --Habst (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Liberia at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage in the article, and currently there is zero. We just can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a WP:ATD, which will preserve the page history in the event coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Liberia at the 1972 Summer Olympics: There is no evidence offered of sources to pass WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG, only the usual waves at WP:NEXIST by keep !voters, which are unconvincing in the absence of actual sources to evaluate. Of course sources might exist in physical archives, but NEXIST does not give us carte blanche to maintain non-compliant articles in mainspace on that possibility. At any rate, redirecting will preserve the page history should future qualifying sources be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.