Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darian Forbes

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 no consensus. The discussion is balanced, so this close will perhaps allow opportunity to find more sources.. Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Forbes[edit]

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

Not notable - only reference is IAAF profile and never progressed past first round of any tournament. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - give him his dues, he participated in a IAAF World Championships (even though he cam last in his heat, this is still the highest level of athletic contest) therefore passes WP:NATHLETE. Sionk (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NATHLETE: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" I'm not seeing any sources other than one track heat result. ManGoldin (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, he meets criteria 1 of WP:NTRACK. WP:NTRACK is alternative sport specific notability criteria (as mentioned in your quote) for athletes. Sionk (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not there yet. It needs more reliable sources talking in-depth about the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly meets the first criterion at WP:NTRACK. Scorpion's argument immediately above seems to be in the line of WP:RUBBISH - it definitely needs developing but that doesn't take away the fact that it meets the relevant notability rule. Amisom (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While Forbes definitely meets NTRACK, NTRACK is not the ultimate answer to life, notability and everything; WP:GNG is. Looking at Forbes's athletic credentials (competed in the World Championships, which is an NTRACK pass; twice competed in the Commonwealth Games; set several national records; seems to have done some coaching after his career) it's reasonable to expect coverage; but a reasonable expectation that's right 98-99% of the time is wrong 1-2% of the time. Sources available online only show passing mentions and routine coverage, nothing that would contribute even slightly towards meeting GNG; considering that Forbes comes from an English-speaking country and competed in the Internet era, that is not a good sign and suggests he may be in the 1%.

It's also entirely possible that during his active career he received enough coverage in local sources to meet GNG comfortably, and that those sources are simply not available online; not being familiar with Turks and Caicos journalism, I cannot guess whether that's likely or unlikely. At his level (he didn't qualify for the World Championships by meeting the normal international entry standards; he got in because Turks and Caicos didn't have anybody else) expecting coverage beyond such a local level is a stretch; it does happen for athletes who're bad enough or strange enough to be a curiosity (think Eric the Eel), but Forbes wasn't remotely bad enough for that.

Question and answer 4 of the NSPORT FAQ explain the critical point for cases like this, where an athlete meets the sport-specific guideline but has not been shown to meet GNG:

Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?

A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.

I have no idea how much leeway should we give a Turks and Caicos athlete from the early 2000s; maybe @John Carter or @Caballero1967, as members of the Turks and Caicos workgroup, can offer insights. Sideways713 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideways713: But WP:N (the parent page of WP:GNG) says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Since WP:ATHLETE is so listed, and we both agree that this person meets that guideline, he accordingly is sufficiently notable for an article on Wikipedia. Amisom (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: It's unfortunately very easy to misunderstand the relationship between WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, which is not necessarily exactly the same as that between GNG and other subject-specific notability guidelines. All articles about sportspeople need to meet the general notability guideline; meeting WP:NSPORT doesn't give a free pass to anyone who doesn't meet the GNG.
The idea behind WP:NSPORT is that if an athlete meets its criteria, they are very likely to also meet WP:GNG, even if the article has no sources to demonstrate that; it means we can usually presume the sources are out there somewhere, waiting to be found. But sometimes (rarely if the sport-specific guidelines are good; more often if they're too lenient) that presumption is wrong; and if there is a clear consensus that this is one of those cases - that the athlete doesn't meet GNG and that sufficient sources can never be found - then the article should be deleted.

Because the presumption that sources can be found is quite strong, this doesn't happen very often, but it does happen; User:Sir Sputnik/AfD Precedent#NSPORT is not god lists a couple dozen football-related AfD discussions from the last few years where players who clearly met WP:NFOOTY were deleted because there was a consensus that they didn't meet WP:GNG.

See Q1/A1 and Q2/A2 of the WP:NSPORT FAQ. Sideways713 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NTRACK. GauchoDude (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria #1 of WP:NTRACK: "Has competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships". Brad v 19:06, 11 January 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.