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. LizRead!Talk! 00:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keepanother Lugnuts substub he was sanctioned multiple times for making thousands of. No medal, no GNG --> deletion Changing my vote to keep thanks to source discovery.BrigadierG (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be only one available New Zealand newspaper from his time period, and that one newspaper has extensive coverage of him, see for example numerous pieces of in-depth coverage for his Olympic appearance and national sprinting records: [1][2][3][4][5] and [6], among many others. This is enough to satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT and be able to presume additional GNG-satisfying coverage exists, per SPORTCRIT. Pinging @Paora: to see if they can find any more coverage, as well as @BrigadierG:, who hasn't yet seen the coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging others who are known to vote keep can be seen as WP:CANVASSing. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CANVASS, an example of an appropriate notification would be for a user known for expertise in the field – Paora is known for expertise in the New Zealand athletics area, having found coverage for notability in many cases where others were unable to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Paora follows NZ sorted articles, there is no need to notify known keep voters. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:INAPPNOTE "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" LibStar (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not notifying Paora "based on their known opinions," but because Paora is known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why the need to notify? Paora follows NZ sorted articles? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because I haven't followed Paora around to learn that they follow NZ sorted articles (not suggesting you do, but how do you know that?) – I just know that that user is good at locating sources; CANVASS states that it is appropriate to notify editors known for expertise in the field. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing includes notifications that are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really serious in that I only sent the notification because Paora is known for expertise in the field – wasn't there some policy called WP:AGF? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's also a policy of WP:CANVASS. Paora is not necessarily an expert in athletics? You interacted with them here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Telford where he clearly displays a keep tendency. I suggest you refrain from making similar notifications in future AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW CANVASS is not a policy... but Paora seemed like a user who has "expertise in their field," (called out as an appropriate notification by CANVASS) as I've seen them find decent coverage for New Zealand athletes several times in the past - that's the only reason I notified them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in those several times, has Paora tended to vote keep on every occasion (regardless of their supposed expertise)? LibStar (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know – prior to the Telford nomination it had been awhile since I had came across Paora, but I remember coming across other deletion discussions in the past where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics" – that's really the only reason I notified them. I'm tired of repeating this point – I'm done discussing over this notification. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where other users said things like "pinging Paora who's known for being really good at finding sources for New Zealand topics is not an excuse to do the same because "I saw others do it." LibStar (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as BeanieFan has found, multiple authors over multiple years which includes significant secondary coverage, as athlete coverage needs to. Meets WP:SPORTSBASIC, WP:BASIC. —siroχo 06:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those Canterbury local press stories, though. Have you read them? All I can say is, they must have had a lot of slow news days back then. I see nothing but WP:MILL coverage in the local paper of an athlete who didn't earn a medal. Delete.—S MarshallT/C 08:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the coverage provided above is run-of-the-mill. It gives plenty of detail on Dacre's life and sporting career. True, it's from a single publication, but it does cover a period of years and originates from different authors. Dacre also received small amounts of coverage in the Calgary Herald[1] and Ottawa Citizen[2]. All in all, it's enough for me.MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, have had more coverage in my local paper than Dacre got in Canada, and I'm not notable at all.—S MarshallT/C 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Press is the second-largest newspaper in the country, not this "small-town local paper" you seem to be making it into. Also, "MILL" is an essay and has no impact on notability (and even if it was a policy, how the heck is being an Olympian an "common, everyday, ordinary" accomplishment?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC with the additional sourcing. As others have noted, The Press is one of the major New Zealand newspapers and is far from a "local" or "small-town" paper. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following expansion. Paora (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2023 (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.