Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolás Aguirre

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 has settled on there being sufficient sources to sustain an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Aguirre[edit]

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

Aguirre has never played at a level that would grant him notability, and with the sources being weak, including one being a YouTube video of him playing, there is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets gng [1], [2] for example. Jacona (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not significant coverage, it's a mention. Further, it's not a reliable source, as it doesn't show up in Spanish Wikipedia. Confers no notability. Tapered (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reference to Spanish Wikipedia as a guideline for what constitutes a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'at's easy. I use the same criterion in English. If a newspaper has an article in Wikipedia, and it's been around for awhile, then reliable. There are papers in Wikipedia that aren't reliable. But, conversely, unless a paper warrants an article here, notability is an uphill battle. Without a discussion to determine the reliablity of a publication, that's what I use. You have a better way to sift through Argentine sources? Tapered (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources don't meet ~~WP:R~~ WP:RS. None of the information links at the top of the page show any promise. Has never played in any of the leagues that confer WP:N according to WP:NBASKETBALL. Has played in only one major regional tournament, the PanAm. Tapered (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really seen the argument above before. (The sources don't meet the redirect policy). What on earth does it mean? What requirement is there that sources meet WP:R?

Thanks for that clarification, WP:RS makes a lot more sense than your previous mention of the redirect policy.. But have you read it? Because if ñWikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source. While Liga Nacional de Básquet is not included in the list at WP:NBASKETBALL that is considered automatically notable, Argentina (largely the LNB) produced the 2004 Olympic champions. Argentina is the only country other than the US to have achieved this pinnacle of success in the last 30 years! So, instead of just reciting a poorly thought out list, replete with leagues from countries that have never won the Olympics, we should change NBASKETBALL; this is obviously an oversight. Jacona (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Tapered, when you make changes to your assertions, which have been commented on or questioned by others, would you consider using strikethrough instead of directly editing prior conversation, as is recommended on the talk page guidelines. It is somewhat WP:UNCIVIL to do otherwise. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona It's true. I feel that was uncivil towards other readers, but I don't apologize to you. Given the context, that looked like a typographical error ("typo") all the way—WP:RS is implied. When I saw your remarks I was embarrassed—and amused at your conclusion.

I have no way, besides inclusion in Spanish Wikipedia or a google search, to evaluate an Argentine source. Also, the quality of the website and context—what else is on the site? That website was not convincing, and in tandem with its lack of notability, that sealed my conclusion.

As far as inclusion of the Argentine league in WP:NBASKETBALL, your argument sounds convincing, but I know little about international basketball. Why don't you propose the change on that Talk page, and publicize it? Tapered (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNG has been met, and the subject of the article has played a match for his country at the international level. The source for this was in the article, so why on earth are we here? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "one international game" is from WP:NSOCCER, not WP:NBASKETBALL, where internationals aren't even mentioned. What counts here is WP:NOLYMPICS, for which Aguirre doesn't qualify. If the Pan-Am Games are included, what about the African, Asian, and ?Oceanian? competitions? International competitions aren't enough for Basketball. Tapered (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. Is there any need for you to jump on every single Keep vote? You're not the nominator - let people give their opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, "I have the right to misconstrue Wikipedia guidelines to fit my opinions, and don't call me on it when I do!," huh? I disagree. Tapered (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it's your opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Argentine league is a fully professional league, as it appears in the Wikiproject page and he was the MVP of it. We need to make a serious review about the leagues that appear as notable, as there are several professional leagues that do not appear (e.g., second divisions in several European countries or women's leagues). Article must be improved and I'm sure it is easy to find references for it. Asturkian (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: First off, he absolutely does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL as it is currently written, which over the years has appropriately gotten stricter. @Asturkian: the list you refer to is not currently referenced by NBASKETBALL nor is playing in a fully professional league a criterion in NBASKETBALL due to many "fully professional leagues" not generating enough independent coverage to for individual players to meet WP:GNG. Currently, the two sources I have seen for this player appear to be generally routine sources, which are specifically listed as not usable for passing the GNG standards on their own. So unless other sources come to light (my Spanish language search has not shown much), he fails GNG, the only notability guideline that matters. So everyone who has commented as Keep on this subject, please appropriately familiarize yourself with NBASKETBALL and prove that he meets GNG instead. Yosemiter (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The First League of Argentina is one of the strongest in South America, and I fail to see why an MVP there (and player for the national team as well) shouldn't be considered at least as notable as anyone who has played a single game in some of the league mentioned in WP:NBASKETBALL. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733: Ignore NBASKETBALL in this instance (as he does not meet it as currently written) and bring up proposed changes to that guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball if you feel they are insufficient (they sometimes are). This is not for opinions on strength of league, but whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (straight from the WP:GNG). Do you have any sources to back up your claim other than "he should be" because he was MVP of a league (any league for that matter)? Yosemiter (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: *Sigh* So there's the old argumentative twist of pretending as if the specific notability guidelines and the GNG were completely separate (or even contradicted each other). WP:NSPORT is an extension or interpretation of the GNG. In the case of sportspeople, the level at which they compete is central to what makes them notable or not. If you really think we shouldn't discuss it here at all, congratulations, you've just disqualified yourself from any serious conversation on the topic. But if you want to find significant coverage, what about starting with which appears to be one of Argentina's leading newspapers, La Nación? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733: I never said they were separate and my intent of that statement was that NBASKETBALL is supposed to be a set of guidelines that nearly guarantees that the player will meet GNG. Since you suggested he should meet NBASKETBALL even though the league and tournaments are not currently listed as auto-qualifiers, I suggested you bring up the possible changes (with evidence) to the specific WikiProject that moderates the guidelines to have them added. That is standard procedure, so I am not sure how that disqualifies me from the subject at hand, which is whether or not Nicolás Aguirre is notable. In order to meet GNG, I asked for reliable and non-routine sources, which are what is needed to meet the GNG. You then provided a link to a reliable national level newspaper where he is tagged. He gets several routine mentions in the game coverage, which shows significant coverage on the team and league. But I am still looking (and perhaps you could help) for an article that covers Nicolás Aguirre in depth, not just a statement about his scoring the most points on a given night or the statement that he won MVP (i.e. a full article about him winning the award and why, not just a mention that he won it). The again, maybe I am personally just too strict about several mentions constituting as "significant coverage". Yosemiter (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting to take the second step before the first one, i.e. adjusting a guideline to an agreement we haven't reached yet (and, as far as I can see, aren't necessarily trying to reach here because it's still just one single article we're discussing). However, what I'm concerned about is that NBASKETBALL, apparently, has lost the "softer" kind of requirements (i.e., "similar" leagues to the ones mentioned there) it had contained the last time I had taken part in such a discussion. That's okay as long as guidelines are generally interpreted as just being "rules of thumb" (as WP:NSPORT declares), and I think that's what you're missing here. Concerning coverage, this article from another, smaller newspaper is the most extensive one I could find concerning winning the MVP. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "keep" commenters on this page are all attempting to circumvent reasonable Wikipedia guidelines and practices, which maintain content integrity, and a sort of order. Guidelines have developed—they're not sacrosanct, and they do evolve. As WP:NBASKETBALL reads today, Aguirre fails WP:N, largely because the Argentine league isn't recognized as top tier. Yosemiter and myself seem to agree that the Argentine league probably ought to be in that list. The process to change it takes place in the confines of the Basketball Project, not here. Instead, the 'keepers' use convoluted rationales, misconstrue guidelines, or advocate ignoring guidelines. Please delete this article, and force the 'keepers' to work to change the guidelines. Tapered (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the keep commenters cited gng. Jacona (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, added Liga Nacional de Básquet to WP:NBASKETBALL. Jacona (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere: I disagree with adding Liga Nacional de Básquet to criterion #1 of NBASKETBALL because we are having enough trouble deciding if the MVP of said league is even notable, much less all players and coaches. If anything, this AfD would place it into criterion #3.

What I was getting at with my comments and to Axolotl Nr.733 were that since it is not currently listed, then proving that Nicolás Aguirre meets GNG is the only requirement. If Aguirre meets GNG then this is the first step in setting the precedent for including as part of discussion to include in NBASKETBALL. Axolotl has provided some evidence to his proof of notability. All the others you mention that cite GNG did so incorrectly by citing only routine articles. The best article provided thus far was the El Liberal MVP profile of Aguirre found by Axolotl. If this is sufficient as a reliable source (of which I am not the best to vouch for Argentinian newspapers) and the multiple mentions in La Nación (routine, but reliable) then I could see him passing GNG and to NOT delete his article.

With that said, I am removing your addition to criterion #1 of NBASKETBALL until it has been discussed further through the proper channels and defined as to which tier of accomplishment the league belongs. If we agree that Aguirre is indeed notable the first step has been taken to adding this #3, but not yet proven that all MVP and other honors are notable players yet. Yosemiter (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: @Rlendog: Using my method—does it have an article in Wikipedia Español?—El Liberal is a reliable source. Tapered (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: Then based on that assumption, and the several mentions other sources, I change my analysis to a weak keep for Aguirre based on likely passing the minimum requirements for GNG. The El Liberal article should be added to the Aguirre article as a reference for meeting GNG. As part of this AfD, I looked into the other MVPs of LNB and almost all of them passed NBASKETBALL through either NBA or Olympic participation. It seems likely that players that earn MVP in this league are notable (although maybe not for playing in this league directly). A discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and notify Wikiproject:Basketball of the proposition. Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere: I did not suggest that you unilaterally change a Wikipedia guideline. At least you didn't mention that with the edit. Tapered (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a few problems with this nomination. I don't necessarily agree with the recent change to Basketball notability. I suspect that the Argentina league, which has provided several players directly to the NBA, including stars, should probably be considered a top-tier league. But even if it is not, the MVP of the top league in a country that cares about the sport should not really be questioned as to notability. In WP:NHOCKEY, for example, winners of top honors in not just 2nd tier leagues but 3rd tier leagues are assumed to be notable. And I don't think there is any question that Argentina cares about basketball. I also don't necessarily agree with Tapered's criteria for notability of a non-English source, although I understand the rationale and it could make sense as a screen. But that said, reliability is not the same as notability, and a reliable source may be too small to be notable. Or it may be notable but no one has bothered to write an article about it yet (that is the case for English sources as well, but Spanish Wikipedia is about 1/4 the size of English). And of course there are notable sources that are not reliable (e.g., blogs and self-publishing houses.) So judgment is always needed here.

That said, I think that the elcomercial.com site in Jacona's original post is likely notable, because it is not a blog and while it does not have a Spanish Wikipedia article I see it's publisher Amacom Publishing listed as source in other Spanish Wikipedia articles. But with respect to Aguirre, there seems to be a lot more. For example, this, whose publisher does have a Spanish Wikipedia article, this, whose publisher does have a Spanish Wikipedia article, and a little coverage here, whose publisher seems to have a Spanish Wikipedia article (and none of these appear to be blogs or self-published). So I think he passes GNG easily but I think the basketball notability guidelines need to be updated to either be more inclusive of leagues like Argentina's or at least of the more prominent players in such leagues (sort of like Hockey's 2nd tier leagues). Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aguirre has now been shown to have numerous WP:RS articles in the Argentine media. Kudos to Axolotl and Rlendog for unearthing the reliable sources. That's the basis for this keep. Aguirre was not a member of the 8th finishing Argentine team at the 2016 Summer Olympics, or the 11th finishing 2014 FIBA championship team. The 2004 team looks like a very golden generation team for Argentina. At least 3 of that team were still on the 2016 team. So, at the moment, the Argentine league doesn't look all that strong. (By the way, for Americans, the Argentine 2004 gold looks like proof that b-ball is team sport.) I stand by my previous complaint about the commenting of the 'keepers' who distorted and ignored the guidelines. Methinks they might have noticed Aguirre's absence from the national team for major tournaments. Tapered (talk) 01:59, 22 March 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.