Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oriol Sellarès Martínez

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oriol Sellarès Martínez[edit]

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

One of a fairly large number of recent articles on sighted guides for Spanish Paralympians. As far as I can tell, not a single independent source gives any significant attention to Sellares Martinez[1], the vast majority mentioning him only in passing ("with guide Sellares" and similar comments), all focusing on the actual athlete instead. The first source, from the Spanish Paralympic committee, is not independent, and only gives the barest biographical facts without any indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO and, as far as applicable, WP:NSPORTS.

This AfD is only for this article, but depending on the outcome I may nominate other similar ones from Category:Spanish sighted guides as well. Fram (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a guide runner for a Spanish paralympian isn't of primary importance in article creating and might seem an obscure topic to many but as far as I can see he meets GNG which it seems he does unless I'm mistaken. I'm a little concerned that a lot of these articles are a bit "generic" in appearance, but at least they're well-sourced; most articles on Olympians aren't. I can't say I've looked into the accuracy of Laura's work, but IMO this appears to be somebody who has competed in the Olympic Games as an assistant runner in the Paralympics so should also pass WP:Athlete.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one or two articles that indicate he meets the GNG? LauraHale added a lot of articles, but most (all?) seem to be further passing mentions, minor results (second in a local competition and the like), and so on. As for WP:ATHLETE, it makes a clear distinction between Olympic and Paralympic athletes (ignoring for the moment whether guides qualify as "athletes"): "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games" He (or the athlete he guides) haven't won a medal at the Paralympics, so there is certainly no automatic presumed notability through WP:ATHLETE. Of course, if he meets the GNG, then he still qualifies for an article. Fram (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to win a medal at the Olympics, athletes who've competed for their nation at the highest level of their sport are generally accepted on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:ATHLETE. It depends on the sport, many people who have competed at the highest level for a very minor sport would also not be accepted here. Fram (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found one Catalan newspaper that mentions him 83 times. These 83 sources are almost exclusively about his non-Paralympic athletics carrer. I found another Catalan language newspaper that mentioned him 28 times. Catalan sources cover him. Guide runners are not some schmucks. Assuming Fram is familiar with the sources for guide runners having read them, he would know that they are pretty much elite athletes in their own right. They are not some schmucks who give it a go, because elite vision impaired runners are elite. They need to be able to run fast. (Just like in cycling, since Fram indicated he'd give all guides a go. I can think of at least one cycling pilot who had a Commonwealth medal to their credit.) The 2012 competitors for the Paralympics for guides all got medals if their runner got one. They have to meet the exact same criteria. And as the focus rightly should be on the vision impaired athlete, that the Paralympic sources mention the person he is guiding makes sense, because most of the sources about the vision impaired competitor are also going to mention their guide. --LauraHale (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to link to that newspaper, so we can judge for ourselves? And no, I am not going to nominate any people who are elite athletes in their own right. Perhaps, if Sellares is an elite athlete, the article should have made that clear? As it stands, he is "a Spanish track and field competitor on the regional level", which would mean that in general he would not meet our notability guidelines. Not a schmuck (and there is no need to equate someone not meeting our notability guidelines with a schmuck), not an elite athlete in his own right either. Every athlete who competes for a number of years will get a lot of hits in results and so on, that doesn't mean that there is significant coverage. Fram (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article is now bombarded with links to sports results, mentioning Sellares somewhere in a sentence or a list of results. No indication that any of these have the significant coverage which is the cornerstone of WP:GNG has been given. Note that a fair number of the sources given don't mention Sellarés at all either, e.g. "Spain's 14 strong visually impaired athletics delegation to the London Games participated in a training camp at the Center for Sports Modernization in La Rioja ahead of the Games.[31][32][33][34][35][36]" has six sources, where the second, third and fourth are the exact same text, and the first, fifth and sixth are also the exact same text. Don't be fooled by this impressive list of sources, but actually check them to see what value they have for this article... Fram (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is not inherently notable as a star athlete, but meets general notability. There is no in-depth study of the individual, but a great many superficial mentions, which between them add up to the same thing. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no... That's exactly the point of the GNG, many passing mentions do not equal a few significant sources, or else every amateur sporter who continues sporting for a few years would be notable. Fram (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't read it that way. I see one (very short) biographical outline, then a wide variety of reliable independent sources giving information about events in the subject's career as a mid-ranked athlete, then as a guide at the international level. He has not yet attracted a biographer, but no original research is involved. This the kind of person about whom a reader may well ask, "who is this guy?". The article uses the sources to provide an answer: not details of his personal life, but what the press has reported about him. He has been widely noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've relisted instead of just closing in hopes of a stronger consensus, as this is apparently a test case. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on closing this, but I'm a bit befuddled by the current state, so instead I'll just ask some questions and let somebody else close it. User:Mark Arsten and Northamerica1000 both relisted this, seeking clearer consensus. It sure looks to me like there's a clear Keep consensus formed before either of the relistings. I'm curious why you felt consensus had not been reached? I offer no particular opinion which way this should go, but hope that your replies to my question will aid whoever closes this come to a sharper decision -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted it because Fram said he was going to judge whether to nominate other articles based on the outcome. I was hoping for more participation if this was going to be a test case. But I guess that didn't happen. Normally if there were three reasonably well-argued keep votes I would have just closed it after one week though. Not much sense in leaving this open any longer, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2014 (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.