Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Apancho 2

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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Apancho[edit]

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

General notability guideline - no significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. The only source simply lists the subject's name on a list of competitors. Neutrality^talk 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source confirms that the subject played in a world championship, passing WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

(1) The sports guideline that doesn't override the General Notability Guideline. Is there any "significant coverage [from] sources" that "address the subject directly in detail"? Significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention." I cannot find any such material. He is just one name on a list, with a handful of passing mentions in blogs and trade publications.We do not even basis bio items like age or date or birth, place of birth, or hometown. This individual went to the competition a single time and did not place. All of this weighs against notability.

(2) Even if we accept the sports guideline: If you look at the top of the page, notability requires sources that "provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." Here, the minimal coverage that exists is clearly routine. The guideline also states that participants in "major international amateur or professional competitions, such as the Olympics" are considered notable. The "WPA World Nine-ball Championship" is probably not a "major" competition, certainly nothing like the Olympics. For example, the Championship wasn't even played in 2008 or 2009; I think irregular or sporadic competition indicates that it is not truly a major competition. Neutrality^talk 07:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GNG sum up the basic criteria for inclusion, which are only specified by the sports guideline. It's impossible to argue that a person who would satisfy any one of these more specific criteria is still non-notable when concerning the GNG. Also, the section of the sports guideline you're referring to is just a further commentary on applying the GNG to sports-related articles, meant to avoid heavy appliance of the GNG in cases that would clearly fail the sports-related citeria. That said, I would rather consider this case to be the opposite of that: A person who might be notable (it's the official world championship of a sport approved by the IOC, the overall prize money was $400,000 that year (comparable to, say, a lower ATP tour tournaments), and it was captured on TV — that's certainly a "major" competition), but isn't covered by any non-trivial external sources. So, while I personally wouldn't mind this article to be deleted, your reasoning is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what do you mean by "did not place"? It's a knock-out stage, so he automatically shared 17th place with all players that lost in the round of 32. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. No significant coverage. Davidelit (Talk) 03:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again: It's insufficent to argue that a person doesn't pass the GNG if he passes the sports guideline, because they're not contradictory. If he has taken part in a professional tournament like the ones mentioned in that guideline (and he has done so), he is notable, period. If there is no "significant coverage", the article may still be deleted because it's impossible to provide at least the basic personal data, but that's not an issue of notability in itself. In fact, considering the OP's false claims (of course, Apancho did "place" in the competition), his total concealment on there having been a first AfD discussion, and his and your try to twist the guidelines in a way they cannot bear, lead me to assuming rather bad faith being at work here, even if I support deleting an article that is nothing else than a data bank entry written in prose, of which, however, we have thousands without anyone doubting their respective subjects' notability. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Concealment on there having been a first AfD"? What are you talking about? The first AfD has been listed on the sidebar from the creation of the AfD, and it's called "Roy Apancho 2" at the top. Get a grip. Neutrality^talk 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know there has been a first discussion that resulted in the article being kept, then your task is to provide additional reasons going beyond the first discussion. A bare mentioning in the sidebar isn't enough. And if you think the article was wrongfully kept, then a deletion review would be more appropriate. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage found, although it is clear that he reached 17th. As he didn't reach the finals I don't think that is enough notability to pass WP:ATHLETE. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "didn't reach the finals"? In a knock-out competition there's only one final, and only two players reach it. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't reach the finals, didn't reach the semi-finals, didn't reach the quarter finals, and didn't reach... the name escapes me right now (octa-finals?). That's far enough from the top that I don't consider it an automatic assumption of notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable sportsman, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2011 (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.