Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawel Brylowski

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. Consensus among most comments that both NCYC and GNG are met. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Brylowski[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. While it passes WP:NSPORT/WP:NCYC, note that NSPORT clearly states that the subject has to meet GNG, meeting NSPORT is just indicative they are more likely to do so, so we should search for sources (WP:BEFORE): "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." Well, I don't see anything except few stats - this individual has nothing going on for him. Middling performance at one relatively high level event (but not Olympics), so he doesn't even qualify for saying that he represented his nation at the top event (because top is Olympics). And for anyone interested in splitting hair about whether top can include more than one competition, it doesn't matter: unless it can be shown he meets GNG, he is simply not notable. NCYC cannot overrrule GNG/BIO, so please abstain from keep votes based solely on rationale "meets NCYC" - it is simply invalid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has completed at the 2010 UCI Track Cycling World Championships, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. And he's a two-time national champion to boot. More bad-faith WP:POINTY disruption following this AfD by the same nom. Keep this up and a topic-ban will be coming your way. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced all that and found an interview with the man. Bam. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: First, please remove or refactor your comments on bad faith and topic bans, they are not conductive to a friendly discussion, and are in violation of WP:AGF/WP:NPA policies. Now, did you see the part about NCYC not superseding GNG? The interview on a niche Polish cycling website is not even a proper interview, it is a single lengthy quote from him. The other paragraphs there is a quote from his team leader, and a simple summary of his career. Interviews are not considered quality sources per problems WP:INTERVIEW. Winning some non-notable, local, niche events does not help him meet GNG (or NCYC, even). Playing the devil's advocate (I'd be happy if we can prove he is notable, I am not a deletionist) the Polish article (in the paragraph describing his career) does mention his team set a Polish record for 4 km team, and he got 2 silver medals in team competitions, but again, those don't seem to help him meet the said policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. How many more times? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: How many times before you notice that at the top of NCYC (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) there is a section that reads: "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." Meeting NCYC is not sufficient for an article to remain on Wikipedia. Meeting GNG is the necessary element here. Would you like to explain how the subject meets GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Let me speak plainly: meeting NCYC is irrelevant. How does the subject meet GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very quick google turned up this interview, which seemed reasonably in-depth including how he got into cycling etc.XyZAn (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XyZAn: Good find, but I will note that this is a regional, not national, newspaper (Dziennik Bałtycki), and GNG prefers coverage that is not so limited; further, per WP:INTERVIEW, this is just a list of questions with his answers, there is no journalistic commentary nor any indication that the material was selected in some way. This is pretty much his self-published life story that regional newspaper picked up. Good find, yes, but IMHO still on the wrong side of WP:BIO requirements. Now, I usually deal with artists and businesspeople at AfD, not sportspeople, but building a biography on two low-profile interviews would not save those articles, and I do not think sportspeople should get any preferential treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using WP:INTERVIEW to try and undermine sources. Take a look at that page you've linked to. Esp. this bit right at the top: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to locate coverage that I believe meets the GNG (not linking it as I see someone already has) but I feel it's important to point out that WP:NCYC does not supersede WP:GNG and anyone who thinks it does is just wrong. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to more sourcing. I dont feel GNG is met by a couple of regional interviews. Its routine coverage. (Before accusations of bias, I rescued Tre Whyte from the SvG purge, and that has *less* sourcing currently, but has the bonus of the subject being the British National Champion.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: I might be missing your point, so apologies if I do/have but your argument seems to defeat itself... You comment that Tre Whyte is notable through the fact that he was British National champion in BMX, where as Brylowski has been national champion in both the Team Pursuit and Madison... So are you saying that Whyte is more notable because he was a British NC (versus Polish) or because it was in BMX (versus Track cycling) and it has less sourcing. So based on your logic, Brylowski has more NC's and more/better sourcing? XyZAn (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This piece was what tipped it over the edge for me, along with the information about a national record that he set. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Exemplo347: This is exactly a copy-paste/repost of [1]. Which, btw, I haven't noticed before but is signed on that page as 'Informacja prasowa', which is Polish for press release. Press releases are not accepted as reliable, independent sources for other articles and I again don't think we should make exceptions for sportspeople. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite obviously and verifiably notable elite cyclist. Perhaps those wanting to delete this could explain how they feel that would improve the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply in the same format: quite obviously, removing a spam-like entry on minor, non-notable cyclist is in line with Wikipedia not becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't appear to understand the meaning of either spam or indiscriminate. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Can we stop with the point-y nominations, please? The AfD you cited was closed incorrectly in the opinion of myself and many others and nominator is being very disruptive with these nominations. Meets WP:NCYC. End of story. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (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.