Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad De Losa

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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad De Losa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Notability and WP:BLP1E, sourced from a ~30-word BBC article. There is no justification for this standalone article. Step hen 01:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a lumberjack and he's ok The subject was five times Australian champion, became the world champion in 2013 and retained the title in 2014. Setting a new world record is just the latest exploit. He therefore passes WP:SPORTCRIT, "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". WP:BLP1E is irrelevant because this requires that three conditions be met -- that the person be only covered in the context of one event; that they be low profile; that their role in the event was not substantial. None of these conditions apply because he's competed successfully in multiple events, gives personal interviews to the press and, in setting a new world record, is the focus of particular international attention by major news organisations such as the BBC. The BBC's coverage is a video. I'm not sure what the word count for the narration is but the pictures are worth at least a thousand words.Andrew D. (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his victories have received sustained coverage over a period of years. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, BLP1E clearly does not apply. Someone intentionally seeking publicity is not a "low profile individual" as required by the guidelines. Second, coverage is extensive and over many years, conveying notability. Third, the current sourcing is irrelevant - we just notability on article potential. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2015 (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.