Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Duncan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Whether to redirect these to appropriate articles is left to editorial discretion, as is possible recreation if they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Duncan[edit]

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

Naomi Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A series of youth hockey players (aged 16-18 year) who participated at the 2018 Youth Olympics. While playing at the senior Olympics is normally considered sufficient to be notable, playing at the Youth Olympics isn't.

Also nominated for the same reasons are:

They all received the routine coverage one may expect in such situations, but don't meet the standards we have for most sports at WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the Youth Olympics are notable per WP:YOUNGATH, WP:GNG as national field hockey champions, representatives of Australia in international field hockey competition in South Africa, and per WP:Notability (sports) as the first Australian Women's Field Hockey team to participate in the 2018 Youth Olympic Games. medal winners Olympic level qualifiers are customarily covered substantially in independent sources prior to (national/international competition & various qualifying games) and after the Youth Olympics. I don’t think we should restrict a national/international athlete’s notability based on age when other notability criteria has been met. For example, Grace Young (field hockey) was covered in independent RS because she excelled on a national level and qualified to tour internationally. Youths of that caliber are typically competing long term and receive long term media coverage. I’m also not seeing anything in our PAGs that would justify exclusion based on age. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Underlined portions added after more research, and information is found per ongoing discussion here. 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please sign and date your posts, this one was from 26 October, 10 days later than the one above. Anyway, in what way are a primary source (the Australian olympic committee describing their choices for the youth olympics) or a general source with nothing about these individuals relevant for this discussion at all? Fram (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I let one slip by...it's fixed now. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Youth Olympic medal winners are customarily covered substantially in independent sources": they finished fifth, they aren't medal winners? And I don't dispute that the games are notable, but notability is not inherited, and participating in a notable event doesn't make you notable. The Young sources seem to be all local, the kind of coverage most talented young athletes get in local news but which isn't considered sufficient for inclusion here for most sports. Fram (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and appreciate your side of the argument, Fram - I’ve actually been on the opposing side of deletion arguments for teen beauty contestants. I’ve also considered the fact that we have articles about Little League Baseball, High School Football, Gatorade Player of the Year awards, etc. Admittedly, I have not invested a great deal of time/effort looking for RS for all the subjects of this AfD, but I scanned Google for Young, and did a shorter scan for Morgan and found enough to satisfy WP:N...and the coverage was not just local or passing mention (I added info & RS to their articles). For example, Morgan was the team captain for the South Africa tour, and their team finished undefeated. Most sports media don’t even cover women’s sports much less teens, so finding as much as I did in a brief scan on Google is an indication there is far more out there. The young ladies subject of this AfD are, at minimum, national sports notables. The Donna Strickland article may not be the best example to use here since there is no comparison between sports and physics, but I think it’s important that we not rush to delete verifiable national sports champions (who are also Youth Olympic medalists qualifiers finishing 5th) because of age (or gender). It’s always better to cover our bases, and quite frankly, I’m not convinced that enough time has been devoted to finding RS for any of the subject BLPs. That’s it from me. I’m unwatching this page. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Correction 05:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:, again they aren't Youth Olympic medalists!!! Fram (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the independent sources on the Young article, which you claim is a "national sports notable" and "the coverage was not just local".
These aren't national newspapers spending an article on Young, these are the local newspapers from close to her. Fram (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question / observation: When multiple local publications spread over a distance of over 1000 km, and across multiple states, report on the subject, does that not mean it is no longer local coverage? Aoziwe (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. When one is "local girl" (e.g. one born here) "has sporting success", and the other is "local girl" (e.g. one goes to school here) "has sporting success", then it is still local coverage even if the birth place and the school are far from each other. Now, if smallish (local/regional) newspapers without a locality link to the subject start covering the person in some detail as well, then you indeed get away from "local coverage" and get more widespread coverage; but that doesn't seem to be case here. Fram (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it’s important that we not rush to delete verifiable national sports champions because of age (or gender)." Not because of gender, no, but because of age? Sure. Youth sports (and "master" sports) usually get a lot less coverage than the "senior" champions, so age categories are often a determining factor in distinguishing the notability of sportspersons. Similarly, the coverage of the Youth Olympics is minimal compared to the coverage of the regular Olympics. Someone like Jolie Sertorio only gets passing mentions as part of a team, but no significant coverage. There is no indication that she passes at the moment WP:YOUNGATH, and speculation that she may become a notable athlete (whih may well be true of course) are not relevant to a discussion on whether she should already have an article now. Fram (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (sports) states: “...sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).” There has been local, regional and internet coverage which, when combined, equates into national & international coverage of Young & Mathison, the latter of whom was team captain for the South Africa tour. Mathison won a silver medal in the state’s Under 21 team at the national championships in Sydney. Young won a silver medal at the Pacific School Games in Adelaide, and a gold medal in the state’s Under 18 team at the national championships in Launceston. Both qualified and participated in the Youth Olympics and their team placed 5th. I’ll add that when several different local and regional news sources from different areas, such as the Gladstone Observer, Sunshine Coast Daily and The Saint George and Sutherland Shire Leader write about an athlete, that is considered wide-spread independent coverage, see APN network. It doesn’t have to be the NYTimes or WaPo. Where in our PAGs does it say we discriminate against age? There is also no limit as to how many RS must be used, especially when an entire article is published about a single athelete as there has been in this case. Based on the aforementioned, I disagree that they don’t meet WP:N or GNG, but I’m just one voice. Atsme✍🏻📧 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they haven't played "at the highest level (such as the Olympics)", they have played at youth levels. While impressive, this is not the highest level of the sport, the highest level is the senior level. Competing at the Olympics, the senior World Championships, that kind of thing makes on notable, independent of age or gender (excluding really, really minor sports where even the world championships get next to no coverage, but that's definitely not the case here). Playing in a team that wins a medal at the national U21 champs isn't an indicator of notability for any sport, in any country (except perhaps very few college sports in the US, but these aren't really age-based either technically). We don't discriminate based on age, we reflect the lesser importance most age-based sporting competitions have (be it u-18 or u-16 competitions, or Over-35s of the like); these competitions don't get the coverage the equivalent senior competitions get. Fram (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Atsme✍🏻📧 16:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was included in WP:WikiProject Women's sport. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red Atsme✍🏻📧 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Young I am undecided on Young as there are a couple sources on her, but they don't go into much depth and they are local in nature leading to a possible WP:ROUTINE situation and those kinds of sources are specifically mentioned by WP:YOUNGATH as not meeting the requirement. The others however, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:GNG. YOUNGATH says nothing about Youth Olympics athletes being notable, YOUNGATH is more about when an athlete is not notable than it does for when an athlete is notable. I also suspect Youth Olympics coverage may vary widely by country, I don't think the average person in my country would even know they existed let alone the athletes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there enough out there to cobble together an article on the oz u18 team (presently no article, directs to Australia women's national field hockey team)? these players can then all be directed there, awaiting breakout into standalones when/if they become notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulk merge with redirects I support Coolabahapple's suggestion. Each player is not that notable in their own right (yet), except perhaps one, but the team and the player group together is. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. No question the team qualifies as notable under GNG and past precedent for youth sports. Some of the players may be independently notable as well, maybe not all of them. This is a classic situation where notability exists, but because it's not something that is only recently getting mainstream coverage, the sources are not numerous. But taking the total picture, I see clear notability for the team. Montanabw(talk) 18:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't see them meeting any notability guidelines or WP:GNG. Any coverage is local and routine. A suitable merge would be fine, though. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Competing at the Youth Olympics, even winning a medal there, does not meet any notability standard. Redirecting to an article on the team is a reasonable idea.Sandals1 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This user appears to be a SPA, and participates only at AfD - see contribs and TP. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was only at a single Afd that that might be an SPA but they have on numerous ones, that makes them a normal account who just prefers editing on deletion discussions. Though if they are found to be a sock in the investigation that could be a different story. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete all. I didn't do any searching of my own, but I did look at all of the references in all of the articles included in this AfD. They all look like WP:ROUTINE, and thus fail WP:GNG. I wouldn't object to a redirect or merge somewhere, if there was an appropriate target, but I don't see one; the suggestion above, i.e. Australia women's national field hockey team seems like way to broad a topic. Redirecting there would leave the reader wondering why, since they're not mentioned there, and a merge would be WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of these seven specific cases, and have not yet run any media searches myself, but my impression is that NSPORTS is heavily biased towards male professional athletics, and is inappropriate for judging whether female amateur athletes are notable. Beyond the assumption that (senior) Olympians are automatically notable, I would be more comfortable defaulting to GNG in such cases. I am certainly not comfortable with comments like the one above by Sandals1 suggesting that lower-level amateur competitors are automatically non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Playing at the senior Olympics is normally considered sufficient to be notable; there seems to be no very good reason why playing at the Youth Olympics is not also considered notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage for the senior Olympics is 100 times the coverage for the youth Olympics, which is a "very good reason". Fram (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, do you think 2019 World Seniors Championship is notable based on its coverage? We have articles for prior years. I also wanted to share the following link to a discussion I believe is relevant to this AfD, Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability is geared towards the white male perspective, in particular what was said here regarding sources. I don’t think we should let age or gender be our guiding influences here, or that we should discount the fact these young ladies qualified for and represented their country in the Olympics which is an international amateur event. They also competed internationally which is verifiable in the articles on the Olympics website. There are probably multiple articles about them in other languages that aren’t showing up in our English Google searches. It was certainly a notable enough event for the BBC to cover it live. Atsme✍🏻📧 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A. I don't see the relevance of whether an article I haven't edited, which is up at AfD where I haven't participated, about a tournament in another sport, with deletion arguments completely different to the ones here, is about a notable subject, for this discussion about persons. B. is about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, c. is about historical figures, and D. shows that the youth olympics get coverage, which I never denied. But there is quite a gap between a 1 hour highlights program, and the "BBC TV will broadcast more than 3,000 hours of coverage"[1] for the Rio 2016 Olympics, no? Finally, "There are probably multiple articles about them in other languages that aren’t showing up in our English Google searches." is highly, highly unlikely. The only non-English sources which may mention them are match reports from the countries they played against. The chance that there is a non-English, non-online source which has given significant attention to any of the 7 above listed persons is vanishingly small. "I don’t think we should let age or gender be our guiding influences here": no, we should let coverage, the verifiable existence of significant reliable sources about the subjects, be our guiding influence here. And such sources are absent so far for people like Jolie Sertorio. Fram (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the time to find sources for Young, Mathison and recently Duncan, and they meet the requirements for notability sports. I haven’t researched sources in other languages, but there is valid reason to believe they exist. The other team members may or may not have the sources necessary to warrant stand alone BLPs, I haven’t looked, but they do qualify as a team. I don’t agree that the notability bar should be raised to justify dismissal of the Young, Mathison and Duncan BLPs, as they are verifiable world class competitors who have been covered/featured in secondary and third party sources. The notability of the Youth Olympics is already established as a world class event. GNG has no age restriction for sports notability and it doesn’t specify that the gage by which athletes are measured must be the adult Olympics, or a specific competition or age division. The Youth Olympics is the equivalent of being the ultimate competition for that age division not unlike the World Seniors Championship (there’s the relevance you asked about) would be for over 50 athletes. Atsme✍🏻📧 09:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can repeat your belief that "I haven’t researched sources in other languages, but there is valid reason to believe they exist." as often as you want, doesn't make it true (or even in the slightest likely) though. And you might have noticed that the winner of last years world senior championships doesn't even have an article... Anyway, WP:YOUNGATH is an accepted part of WP:NSPORTS, so contrary to what you claim, sports notability does have an age indication. The notability of the youth olympics is not under dispute in itself, but you seem to claim that the youth olympics should be treated the same as the regular olympics, even though the two events have a completely different amount of coverage, attention from the general public, ... Please read e.g. WP:NTENNIS (another part of the NSPORTS guideline) for a comparable situation. Every player having played in the main draw of a Grand Slam (tennis) event is presumed notable. But "Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title". Age discrimination? No, just a correct reflection of the completely different importance of both events, even though the junior grand slams in themselves are notable as well. Sports coverage outside local sources is 99% senior events (in nearly all sports), and 1% junior or master events. Our inclusion guidelines simply (and correctly) reflect that situation. Fram (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Fram, your argument is invalidated per Olympic_Games#Youth Games which are complements to the Olympics and should not be discounted. WP:SPORTBASIC applies here: ”...sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).” They have competed in the highest level of their division of the Olympics, so notability has been met. Additionally, there are multiple RS covering & independently featuring the 3 athletes. Per WP:GNG: ”There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I have already explained the RS coverage above. They are not subject to WP:YOUNGATH as I first believed because that section refers to high school/pre-high school competition. These girls are/have been competing as members of national/international teams and as members of the Australian Youth Olympic Team. They have been representing their respective states and their country, not their high school. We cannot/should not discriminate against them because of their age, especially 17-18 year olds who are high school grads and are entering or already attending college. I would not object to creating and merging them into an article titled 2018 Youth Olympics Australian Women’s Hockey Team (or the like) where they can each have their own section, then as they further their accomplishments, we can create the standalones. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've misinterpreted WP:SPORTBASIC, as it does not say "the highest level of their division" or "of their age group"--it says "the highest level" (no qualifiers). There are numerous instances of medal winners in individual sports at the Youth Olympics having their articles deleted, not to mention those of athletes who just competed. This has happened multiple times in martial arts. Some medal winning examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davit Ghazaryan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Katheder, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendall Yount (2nd nomination). Even tennis has at least one example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng Saisai, although her article was later recreated when she had some success as an adult. My point is that there is precedence and policy for discounting the Youth Olympics as it is not really the highest level of competition for any sport. Papaursa (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a neutral note (with disclosure that I started this AfD) about this issue of interpretation of BASICSPORTS at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Are the Youth Olympics part of the Olympics as intended in WP:SPORTBASIC?. Fram (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As I said in my comment just above, none of the subjects appear to meet WP:NSPORT. Coverage is what you'd expect and is focused on being members of the Youth Olympic team. Like previous editors, I agree you may well be able to put together an article on the team, but individual articles are WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While they fail WP:NOLY, they may pass WP:GNG. For Naomi Duncan, I found this and this straight away, but would need more work to pass GNG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unless they have a Youth Olympics gold medal around their necks, these high school age athletes are generally not notable. Even with gold it can be iffy on some. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say that in GNG or N(sports)? All that’s required for other international competitions and Olympic Games (which would include Youth) is participation. When Naomi Duncan was featured in The Women’s Game, she was “...part of the first ever Australian women Youth Olympic Games hockey 5s team” and referred to the 2018 YOG as “the Olympic experience”. The Youth Olympics are organized by the International Olympic Committee, so yes, the event is part of the Olympic Games, and I’ve already provided the verifiable sources to confirm. Atsme✍🏻📧 12:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not include Youth. It gives an example of (such as the Olympics). Whether we want to include the kids version is what this discussion is about. Participation is not nearly good enough. It's possible that a few might meet GNG, but those will be exceptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the "kids" are 17 & 18 yo, and participated in Olympic level, world-class competition as the first ever women's field hockey team to represent Australia. Yes, they are notable, despite not getting as much media attention afforded young male athletes. Comparing the two creates a false equivalency, and the latter needs to be taken into consideration. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As per User:Papaursa and User:Fyunck. The history of sport is littered with youth athletes who failed to make the grade at the highest level. Just competing in the Youth Olympics does not make you notable. Nigej (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fram - the Australian Olympic Committee selected these same young ladies to compete in the 32nd 2020 Olympiad in Tokyo 2018 Youth Olympics - Women's Hockey 5s Team in Buenos Aries. I have been looking for more sources when RL permits, and found a few more sources. It's a slow process, but a UK publication appeared in one search, and so did Women's Sports Network. I have not had a chance to check for duplicates. Oh, and another plus for notability - the young ladies represent Australia's first Women's Hockey5s Youth Olympic Team. Do you have any objection to me creating a new article ( 2018 Youth Olympics Australian Women’s Hockey5s Team) as I mentioned above, and then we can spin-off individual articles, if warranted? Atsme✍🏻📧 03:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see where Australia has selected its 2020 Olympic team yet. At this point the only women's field hockey team to qualify is the host (Japan). Of course, should any of the Youth Olympic players play in the 2020 Olympics they would be notable per WP:NOLY, but right now that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, my brain went to sleep. I struck the Japan games and corrected to the proper venue. My purpose was to further demonstrate that YOG is an Olympic event, and that Australia’s team was selected by the Australian Olympic Committee. I was just about to turn-off the lights & call it a night when the iPad pinged me back. I’ll resume looking for more RS tomorrow. Atsme✍🏻📧 05:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, feel free to continue discussing the notability based on sources, but your insistence that these should be considered automatically notable as Olympic athletes (and many other comments you made here) betrays a thorough misunderstanding of how sport competitions are structured and what is considered important by the athletes, the viewers and the media. E.g. the national soccer organisation of a country is responsible for all national teams, be it the senior team or the U14 team, and all of these play in international competitions. But even though U14 players who get selected for the national team will often get a short article in the local media, they get zero attention in national media (never mind international media), and are not notable. Everyone at the NSPORTS discussion so far has confirmed this, and it is the basis of WP:YOUNGATH as well. The Youth Olympics are not a part of the Olympic Games, they are a different oragnisation within the same structure, and for the sake of our notability guidelines they are not treated the same as the real Olympics, because they are not treated the same by reliable sources. You can continue defending your undefensible position, but it is fruitless to spend more time on it, or to consider it as evidence of age or gender discrimination on the part of enwiki. Fram (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes zero difference to me any longer. Do whatever, I'm done here. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As Nigej says, competing in the youth olympics isn't a pass to notability. Articles can be restored if the people in question make it at full/senior level. Number 57 11:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Subjects do not meet WP:NSPORT and they are WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:06, 2 November 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naomi_Duncan&oldid=1073184367"