Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shear’Ree

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. AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shear’Ree[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)

While the subject of this page could be considered notable, I can not find any other sources confirming the information provided here. The sources currently in use are almost all subscription-required. The only thing I could verify is his presidential campaigns and that he competed in competitions in 1980 and 1981. Ktkvtsh (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Ktkvtsh (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not offer a formal opinion where the article concerned is a draft that I reviewed and accepted at AFC, so this comment should neither be interpreted as keep nor delete.
What has always been clear is that Notability is fundamental to retention and lack of notability to deletion. What must be decided, difficult paywalled references notwithstanding, is whether the subject is notable. If they are, then referencing doubtless exists and should be added, assuming the references to be deficient. But paywalls have never disqualified a reference.
That being said, AFD is not cleanup, though it often serves as a significant trigger for a cleanup
It goes without saying that I view the subject as passing our notability threshold sufficiently that I accepted the draft. My brief is to accept if I have a belief that the article has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. But I am a single reviewer. AFD is the community's will. We are all subject to consensus, the will of the community. This is why I reman neutral when I have accepted a draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO. If we had better sources for the weight lifting event, might be notable. Rest doesn't help notability. I can't find any sources in Gnews or newspapers. Probably not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across this recently at AfC and meant to review it, but didn't have time then to start verifying the referencing, and soon after it got accepted anyway. I've now looked a few of the sources (Wikipedia Library fortunately gives access to both Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com), and it is clear to me that WP:GNG notability is there. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would the average person that simply goes to the article and clicks a source be able to access it that way? How can we make it so the sources don't automatically lead to the page requiring a subscription? We've got to keep in mind that most Wikipedia visitors aren't going to have the knowledge of how to take the extra steps. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ktkvtsh it doesn't matter. What matters is that the reference exists and also what it says. Wikipedia does not view paywalled or other hard to access references any differently from those freely available. This means that "The sources currently in use are almost all subscription-required" as part of the deletion rational is deeply flawed, and cannot be relied upon. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Not being able to access a source doesn't negate notability. Some are only available offline (on actual paper), but we still can use them. I generally don't check the Wikipedia Library I'm lazy but I'll accept what sources others can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  For Newspapers.com, there is a way to clip images to make them free to view: Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Using the "Clipping" function. It's helpful to users/recommended on that page to use this, so people can easily access references, but I agree that a paywall doesn't stop something being a useful/reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Afd as it is my understanding that the sources can still be accessed without having to subscribe to the site. Also, I am in agreement that notability does not come from sources. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh Thank you. The discussion will run for its normal duration because there are opinions expressed both to keep and to delete. I believe that the eventual closer will construe your withdrawal as a !vote to keep the article. It would be worth your making your opinion on that crystal clear for them im case there is any doubt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 12 September 2023 (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.