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.
Unable to find SIGCOV from my searches and it does not seem that national records are covered under NATH. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niger at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Judging from the results, he competed at the Olympics, World Championships and World Indoor Championships on a quota, since every country in the world are allowed at least one participant. He would not have qualified without it and as such did not achieve good enough results to be recognized in sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is a Nigerien national record holder at the World Indoor Athletics Championships and he ran at the 1992 Olympics. Due to his presence in athletics at such a recent Olympics, the subject is deserving of a presumption of sources existing -- the reason why they aren't at this specific moment easily findable is because of a combination of the subject's name not scanning well (at newspapers.com he is more often listed as "Hassane Llliassou" for example) and also the difficulty of accessing contemporaneous news sources from his home country of Niger. A comprehensive effort to address these issues should be made before a deletion decision is made. --Habst (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The global community reached a solid consensus that no presumption of notability exists for any athletes, and that a presumption of coverage only exists from meeting specific NSPORT criteria if a piece of SIGCOV has already been identified. As we do not have the required citation here, there is no reasonable P&G-based reason to keep this article in mainspace.
@JoelleJay, thank you for replying. I completely agree with WP:SPORTBASIC -- I think that we should address these issues to find that piece of SIGCOV so that we can then work to keep the article. The guideline based reason to keep this article for now is WP:DEADLINE (linked from WP:NSPORT policy), which allots us time to find the required sources and is especially applicable in this case due to the reasons above (many variations of name, pre-Internet time period, country with primary non-English language). Based on Liste des Fédérations Sportives Nationales at the Wayback Machine (archived 2018-09-03), it appears we have a possible contact for Nigerien athletics, but another approach would be to look for Nigerien newspaper archives (Newspapers.com only mostly covers English-speaking papers). The word "should" is crucial here -- there is no WP:OBLIGATION to improve Wikipedia, but I think it would be best to look to improve contested articles before deletion, especially in cases where NATH is met. --Habst (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, NSPORT does not allot time to find the SPORTCRIT #5 SIGCOV source; it is supposed to be in the article from the start. NATH is not met if that criterion is not satisfied. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for replying and clarifying the policy. If a SIGCOV is required to be in the article from the start even for NATH articles, then why not delete all of the following articles? These are just the track and field Olympians since 1952, and while many of them meet NATH none have non-database sources (there might be a few with non-web sources but you can see the vast majority of them do not, this would not be too hard to filter out).
I found these with a simple one line search i.e. this query. If I expanded it to pre-1950 or other sports I am sure we would find many more. Are all of these thousands of articles subject to immediate deletion because they don't include a non-database reference from the start? I suspect that a mass AfD would not come to that conclusion. So then what principle are we operating on here? --Habst (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those articles are eligible for deletion, given a standard BEFORE. Prior to the 2022 consensuses, any of those articles where the subject met a sport-specific NSPORT criterion would have benefited from a presumption of notability that made them much harder to nominate and delete, although they still were required to demonstrate GNG sourcing "eventually". The NSPORT2022 consensus removed all presumption of notability and replaced it with a rebuttable presumption that GNG coverage exists for criterion-meeting athletes if a source of GNG SIGCOV has been identified. This was due to the widespread agreement that the NSPORT sport-specific criteria were, on the whole, much too lax and divorced from the standard they were supposed to predict (GNG). The onus has switched from delete !voters needing to demonstrate a herculean search effort to get such athletes removed, to keep !voters needing to produce the sources showing the athlete actually does meet GNG or at least meets SPORTCRIT with a strong presumption of further coverage existing offline. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. If you think all of those articles plus hundreds more are eligible for deletion, then why not make a deletion request on those grounds so we can settle that question with one big discussion, instead of having dozens of little discussions as articles get nominated here or there, some of which end up being kept? (If you need help, I can provide the other hundreds of articles you say are eligible for deletion by expanding my search). --Habst (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Because we don't want to overwhelm AfD with hundreds of nominations at once? And because bundled AfDs are rarely productive? I didn't say all those articles should be AfD'd, only that they are eligible given a standard BEFORE, which is in contrast to the pre-RfC custom of needing a much higher BEFORE threshold to nominate such articles. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for replying and also thank you for your contributions to these discussions, I do think they have helped to improve the articles. AfD process allows you to combine all of the articles into a single nomination. If anything, I think it is far more overwhelming to AfD to have new nominations every week where we essentially rehash the same arguments over and over, rather than just doing it all at once and establishing a principle. --Habst (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bundled AFD composed of hundreds of AFD-nominated articles would meet with a procedural close, I'm guessing. It might seem like the easy way to consider a high volume of articles but it would be impossible for interested editors to evaluate that many articles and their sources over the course of a week which makes the process unfeasible. LizRead!Talk! 03:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, we are allowed to use common sense when appropriate, per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, which are guidelines (versus policy). Not certain if that is the right option yet (to use IAR), just noting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, thank you for voting. I think that this article is in desperate need of attention and sources, but I also think it is necessary for us to make a holistic effort at finding sources before we vote to delete or redirect. I've looked through some of the papers on this list, but it seems like most have only archived stories from the last few years on their website, and do not have a searchable archive going back to Illiassou's active participation years. Do you know where we can search to have the best chance of finding coverage of the subject? I think we would be doing him a disservice by only looking at a web search knowing that most of his accomplishments happened pre-Internet. --Habst (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully think you are overdoing it in this case, Habst. Replying over and over again when there is nothing of substance to be said about the guy, who was not a good athlete by any means - just happened to be less worse than the others at the time. This is not worth the time, so please do not reply to me by reiterating the same stuff again. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2024 (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.