Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shohei Iwamoto

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. Seddon ^talk 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Iwamoto[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A thorough fail of WP:GNG means that a technical pass of the relevant SNG (subordinate to GNG, as it only offers a rebuttable presumption) is entirely irrelevant; since you can't presume something which does not exist. The sum of all coverage on the subject that I can find in reliable, independent sources is essentially result listings and database entries. Suggest merging/redirecting (as a plausible search term) to List of Japanese sportspeople. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider.)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: I also didn't find anything in English language sources but any relevant coverage would likely be in Japanese sources. Were you able to (i) search Japanese sources or (ii) at least do a google search using Kanji characters? Cbl62 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I couldn't find anything. That appears to hold true in all languages. If Google Translate is accurate, then the only things I'm finding are namechecks ([1]); database entries ([2]); what looks like an interview or failing that is actually written by the article subject ([3]), hence not an independent source; ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What coverage do you expect of an athlete other than their athletic performances? And even if such coverage could be found, wouldn't focusing on that rather than what they are known for violate WP:UNDUE? Smartyllama (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're well aware that interviews, results listings and database entries are not sufficient sources, so there's no point answering your pointy questions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editors, myself included, have pointed to multiple sources that are not "interviews, results listings, and database entries." The fact that an article includes a quote from a subject does not make it an interview. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If it only included one quote or two in passing, you might have a point; but when quotes from the subject are woven through it, then the independence of the source relative to the subject is much more questionable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If articles about his results are "routine" and feature articles about him are "not independent" because they include quotes from him (as would be expected of a feature article about anyone), what would count? And don't just quote GNG back at me verbatim, I know what it says. Smartyllama (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the state of the article and the sources present in it, an overqualified meet of SNG coupled with other coverage. Geschichte (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The added sources are all results tables, databases and routine coverage of an athlete performing in a sporting competition. Meeting the SNG is still as irrelevant as ever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has won an individual medal and a team medal at the Asian Games, has represented Japan twice at the Olympics and has won several national championships. I see that the nomination is focused on the sources but, by itself, I think this qualifies as more than a database entry athlete (and thus a biography that we should aim to have)? - Simeon (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nominated, the article was a sub-stub. It has since been improved with sourcing demonstrating that Iwamoto is a two-time medalist at the Asian games and has been competing at an international level for 13 years. I also suspect that Google searches are not sufficiently comprehensive to find newspaper and other sources from Japan. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a search of his name in Japanese (岩元勝平) turns up a fair amount of news coverage but I am not able to read to verify how deep the coverage is. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obvious POINTy nomination that just serves to defeat nominator's point based on subsequent developments. Stop wasting everyone's time with this discussion when we could be improving the article further and speedy/snow/whatever you want to call it close this thing. I'm somewhat curious what nom expects coverage of an athlete to be other than of their athletic performances. In fact, if such coverage of unrelated matters could be found, primarily focusing on it would violate WP:UNDUE. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In about five minutes, I was able to find multiple sources including [4] (an English translation can apparently be found here though I don't know how reliable it is), [5] (possibly unreliable translation here), [6], [7], and more. All are coverage of the athlete's performance, results, selection to the team, etc. but of course they are because he's an athlete and that's what athletes are going to get coverage for. That's absolutely not routine. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And that was without looking up his Japanese name. Looking up that, I got [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and a whole lot more that I'm not going to go into because this is more than enough already. But if nom thinks it isn't, they're welcome to do more thorough WP:BEFORE and look at the numerous other news stories I could find with a two second Google search for his Kanji name. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- [13] is clearly, very clearly, a transcript from a press conference (with the athlete quoted at length); [14] only trivially names ("Shohei Iwamoto finished 12th with 1361 points.") and an unremarkable quote from the subject (no biographic information whatsoever which could be used to write an article about the subject); and the final links only has The Rio de Janeiro Olympics held a bonus round of fencing at the Deodoro Swimming Center on the 20th of the 16th day of the Games at the Deodoro Swimming Center, and Tomoya Miguchi (Self-Defense Forces) finished 8th with a total of 553 points, Shohei Iwamoto ( The same) was ranked 35th with 469 points. Trivial coverage. So the previous looks like a poor NOTABILITY-CITEBOMB which actually shows that, unlike what it's poster claims, there is no significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to comment on the other seven sources I cited or are you just going to cherry-pick? Smartyllama (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also found [15] which appears to cover him in-depth as well. And I'll ask again - if coverage of his athletic performances is "routine", and feature articles about him don't count because they have too many quotes from him (as would be expected in a feature article about anyone), what would count towards GNG? Be specific, don't just count the policy verbatim, I can look it up myself. Smartyllama (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles which only mention him and his results in an event without giving any further details (such as the above) are not enough for us to write an encyclopedia article; unless you want it to just be stringed-together "Participated in X, achieved Y". The first of the sources in your latest post (no. 8) I've already given my two cents about. There's one article which you've linked three times, the criticism for the once of it applies to all three instances. As for the others, again [16] contains no useful encyclopedic information about the subject - the first part only trivially mentions him in the course of giving results; the rest is clearly bits from an interview (and not even the interview provides actual bibliographic information on which to write an encyclopedia article). I've looked through the rest and they're very similar. An example of what significant, independent coverage looks like is this or this, which both give plenty of details about the specific athlete's career in broader lines and more stuff to write an encyclopedia article on that just "X participated in Y". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems like a WP:POINTY nomination when done in the middle of the general discussion about notability of Olympians. It has been expanded, and the nominator looks only to have used Google search, which is generally useless for foreign language sources. The fact that someone else has found a Japanese language source makes me believe that more exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for the foreign language sources, and they don't provide significant coverage either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing the refs linked above, I am in agreement with RC that the subject lacks in-depth coverage sufficient for GNG. Routine results reports, "features" derived largely from interviews, and database listings are not adequate for establishing notability regardless of the language; plenty of athletes are profiled by independent reporters with a level of detail and breadth well beyond merely recounting match/season performance and without relying on block quotes from the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the discussions above I have expanded the article a bit further, providing a few more sources. These include a detailed report from the 2017 Japan championship focusing on the winner, which was Iwamoto ([17]), media coverage/presentations before the Tokyo Olympics (a courtesy visit to a governor, [18]), and an extensive interview ([19]). Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the stressing from the nominator that interviews do not count at all (or as put in this edit summary: [20]). Maybe they could clarify whether their opinion is based in policy or whether it is just an opinion. I could find nothing in the WP:GNG to explicitly support this view. On the contrary, according to WP:Interviews (which is not a policy or guideline, but a related essay), "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." The essay concludes, "Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oceanh, per GNG primary material cannot contribute to notability. Editors have long held that content from an interview is primary -- it has not undergone the independent analysis that would demonstrate unaffiliated third parties consider the info important. That's what the end of the essay is referring to -- if coverage is significant only because the subject is quoted extensively, the coverage doesn't count towards notability. But if the interviewer provides background material or analysis not derived from the interview that has sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV, then that source can be considered for notability.
  The problem with most of the sources in our article is that they are either primary (interviews where the interviewer only provides basic info or recaps some event results -- such as your third new source) or not independent (your first new source is from 自衛隊体育学校, which is a program he works for). Your second source might have been good enough, but I can't find a byline for it and that's explicitly required for newsblogs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2021 (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.