Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Alvis

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Alvis

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

This was an article up at CSD earlier, and I axed it, but it was restored by Fram (talk · contribs) on grounds that the given reasons for csd - A1 & A7 - were entirely incorrect. That is fine, after all we build by consensus, and I'm only human so I have no reservations about admitting when I have made a mistake, so if I jumped the gun on speedy deletion with regards to this article then I accept full responsibility for the error and any sanctions or censorship that my poor judgement here necessitates, however I am concerned about the article because there seems to be a few relevant policies here that the article comes under that are sending mixed signals. To begin with, the article is short - its got two lines and a few statistics, and little useful information beyond what you may get in a drive by Google search. This would seem to put it at odds with WP:ONEEVENT, since the man in question appears notable only for having been a few races of fame. From this perspective then, the logical choice would be to merge the article into a list of cycling persons or some such place. However, that is contradicted by WP:SPORTS, which implies that the person in question is notable by virtue of participation in major event such as the tour de France, and indeed the man did participate in the event, but came in well behind the leaders to say the least. From this perspective, the article should be kept, but there seems to be a lack of information at present to justify keeping a full article on the cyclist. Finally, WP:BIO lays out that "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after ten days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere." In a review of the article it was never proposed for deletion, which I missed in the csd log check (and I am not proud of that), and to be fair here the article does have one source provided, but the source given speaks to Norman's placement in the races, and not to other information in the article such as birth place, age, etc, which cycles back to case for redirecting or merging the material. Lastly, there are WP:NPF issues to be considered here, as the cyclist seems rather unknown judging by the two lines that comprise the entire biography. That does seems to suggest that a merge or redirect would be appropriate here until such time as the article is expanded on, but I've seen smaller articles exist for years as stubs here and they do just fine, so I would assume there is no reason for this one not to exist as a stub as well. As far as what happens to the article, I'm indifferent if it stays or if it goes (by deletion or merging or redirecting), being an inclusionist I will root for the people making the case to keep it, but I am just enough concerned about this article that I'd like some community input here to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think. Should we keep it, merge it, redirect it, or delete it? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason for deletion given that would even remotely apply. Frankly, how did you become an admin if you first completely incorrectly speedy delete the article, and then sprout the amount of nonsense in the above? Don't you know the difference between what the article is like (short) and what the notability of the subject is? That's probably the most basic aspect of an AfD, but at least half of your "nomination" (if that's the word one can use for this) is filled with how poor and short the current article is... Further: WP:NPF? Really? That's not an argument for or against deletion, that's about what information to include in the article. Nothing in the article comes even close to NPF, so scratch that. WP:ONEEVENT? No, he is notable for a career, including winning two national championships and participating in some of the greatest sports events. He won 21 professional races, in multiple countries, and raced in some of the most important teams, not some insignificant third-rate team. WP:BIO and the "you need one source" argument, which you yourself refute, as a source is present, which contain his birth date (conbtradicting your claim that it doesn't give the "age" of course). You have given nothing which can withstand even the most cursory check. Please withdraw this nomination and take a lot more care with your speedy deletions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Bad idea to CSD A1, bad idea to CSD A7, and bad idea of Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 10:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

On Fram's order, I hereby withdraw the nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 27 May 2014 (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.