Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arto Tukio

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Tukio

not notable, no sources, very little editing activity, very few mainspace pages link to it Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as athlete in premier league per WP:BIO (see additional criteria "Athletes".) Article still needs references but presume notability per guideline. Might have been better to use a notability tag to prompt editors to reference the subject? Premier League athletes shouldn't be coming to AfD. Note that the prod was declined. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the subject is notable, the article still has the other issues I raised. Unless this AfD inspires someone to source and expand it, this will be a one line article forever that serves no informative purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the issue of no references remains. I'm confident that as this athlete is a premier league player that sources will be available. Trouble is they are most likely to be found in the media of Finland. Much easier for us here if the athlete is in an English language country. The subject is no less notable for being where he is though. If you'd put up a Canadian premier league ice hockey player the refs would be on the article by now. The five days for an AfD to run its course doesn't give a lot of time to find suitable WP:RS in these cases, but it's obvious to me the athlete is notable even without the refs being there yet. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor from Finland can cite local sources? The problem therein being unless they see this AfD in the five day period, how do they know about it? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that raises my other concerns: the article has been here since August 2006 with no improvement or expansion. Few mainspace articles link to it. There have been 17+ months for some editor to come along and introduce a SINGLE source of which this person is the subject, and it hasn't happened. So, really, it's not as if the article was created today and I nominated it for deletion, leaving only five days to find a source. There has never been a source. I also want to point out that the "major professional league" mention in WP:BIO is just one of a set of criteria that suggest that the subject might be significant enough to have an article. Regarding these criteria, the guideline takes care to say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Considering that the only argument in favor of having this article is that the subject of it meets one of those criteria, it seems to me to be a strong case for deletion. Croctotheface (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per String au's comments above, possibly WP:SNOW as bad nomination. Lack of sourcing and orphaned articles are not criteria for deletion. That's a cleanup issue. Redfarmer (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should note, too, the Finish version of the article quotes sources, so I agree that sources do indeed exist. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone speak Finnish in order to find the right references?Red Fiona (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep professional athlete. --Krm500 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets WP:BIO guidelines as a professional athlete. If you have a problem with the article either tag it or fix it yourself. Don't afd it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just close as keep. I'm the nominator, and though I disagree with just about everything that everyone else has said here, there's no way there can be a consensus for deleting the article. It's not worth keeping the discussion open. I would be very surprised if this article ever expands beyond what is there now and succeeds in informing people about anything, but that is irrelevant, apparently, to this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (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.