Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 20

Franzen (cyclist) – The deletion of these pages is endorsed, but there is no prejudice against recreation provided that reliable sources can be provided that verify the information in the article(s). On that note, the reliability of Olympedia has been called into question in this discussion, so its use as a reliable source should be discussed before using it as the only reference. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Purpose number 3: "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" --> This list of cyclists were put of for deletion because of the reasoning:

"We only have a surname, no indication of anything else, which after 120 years and quite a few people researching Olympic athletes seems to indicate that nothing more is available about him (usually we have at least a first name, and a date or year of birth, which allows some further research). Even if we do find a "Franzen" in old newspapers, there would be no way of knowing if it is the same man unless it would explicitly include his Olympic participation. Official sources know nothing further[1]. Even for his one participation, all we know if the event and heat he participated in: we don't know his eventual position, his time, ... nothing at all."

For instance of Vianzino, his full name in now known: Guilio Vianzino see here and his cycling club was "CS Torino". This makes is likely information can be found (in old newspapers for instance) about this cyclist. Also for the other cyclist more is known than only the surname. Nominator wrote: "Even if we do find a "Franzen" in old newspapers, there would be no way of knowing if it is the same man unless it would explicitly include his Olympic participation." -> for this particilar person, Franzen was a member of "Union Vélocipédique de France", so it's likely information on him with this information can be found in old newspapers. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are biographies. You do need to provide reliable sources for each.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one can find actual sources of coverage on the individual one should submit these to the Articles for creation process to create new articles. That is how new articles should be created, and we should not try to reverse the deletion process as done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a complete crock. "The Articles for Creation (AfC) process is intended to assist editors who cannot (e.g. non-registered or non-autoconfirmed users) or should not (e.g. people with a conflict of interest), create new articles directly into mainspace." Your repeated presentation of nonexistent policy terms to promote your own positions is disruptive and less than honest. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, steady on HW! Coming on a bit strong there maybe?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious; how do you get from knowing the fellow's full name and cycling club to your presumption that such now makes it likely information from old newspapers can be found for him? (But that being said, fine and dandy: you go find information from old newspapers that can credibly sustain an article on him, and with that information, feel free to create a properly-sourced article.) Ravenswing 06:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the former source, everybody with the name Vianzino in newspaper and results could have been this Olympian. Knowing his complete name, or surname with team name you can be sure it’s him.SportsOlympic (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, perhaps you're missing my meaning. This information does not, in fact, make it more likely that information will be found. It just makes it easier to winnow out false positives. If "Vianzino"+"cycling" isn't turning up substantive coverage, "Guilio Vianzino"+"CS Torino"+"cycling" won't. Ravenswing 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re talking about computer search. In today’s news you won’t find of course information about him. I’m talking about articles in Italian newspapers of the 1900s. And yes in a newspaper of his region he is named in at least 1 newspaper I found last week. And no, as I’m aware of, these newspapers are not findable via internet. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation of articles with new sources. We shouldn't need to go through DRV for that. Smartyllama (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)provided[reply]

With decent sources, though, and only if notable. The OP has recreated Guilio Vianzino, which is a bio of a cyclist who was knocked out in the heats of the 1900 Olympics, and, er, that's it. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs of Olympians can be created under WP:NOLYMPICS. Olympedia.org: is a decent source. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the AfD closer, who has not been contacted before this DRV, I would decline restoration because no new sources beyond the already known Olympic statistics are being proposed for these people. Pending resolution of this DRV, I have also deleted Guilio Vianzino per WP:G4. Sandstein 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not new sources, but new information. This discussion was about known information, not about sources. Olympedia.org is a decent source and enough for creating article per WP:NOLYMPICS. This discussion was bout Olympians with Only 1 name known, and because of that not meeting WP:NOLYMPICS. Vianzino is now meeting WP:OLYMPICS (this discussion was not about WP:OLYMPICS). And, yes it was a Wikipedia:Stub: "An article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject... ...A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context" SportsOlympic (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Guilio Vianzino is clearly not a recreation of a previously deleted page, as the first name was not known before. The previous AfD was heavily based on not knowing the first names of the competitors list. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just see now I wrote the article with another reference as in the AFD. And more information is in the article: fullname, I wrote about his team, where he lived and and training location. I found him in an old Italian newspaper now, but can’t add the information. Article shouldn’t have been speedy deleted under per WP:G4. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We can find new sources" isn't the kind of "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion" that DRVPURPOSE is talking about. Actually finding those sources is. —Cryptic 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. If the name is known, this is a mayor step. Now it's possible to search for this person. And still, the person is meeting WP:NOLYMPICS. What is the point of having specific notability guidelines and then ignoring them. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:NOLYMPICS#Applicable policies and guidelines: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." The point of having specific notability guidelines is not to pick and choose the parts that support your position and ignore the parts that don't. Let us know when your search is successful. —Cryptic 15:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are showing me the general sports guideliness (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). You can see there are that there is made consensus that all Olympians are presumed notable as they are highly liking meeting GNG. But these sources are not findable via the internet. You can even see it in the basics:

“A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that 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).”

SportsOlympic (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close This isn't the place to moan about your stuff being deleted; this is the place to demonstrate that the closing admin erred in their closure. Since the nom's opening statement does not even come close to doing this, I suggest a speedy close to save everyone some time. ——Serial 16:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator may be too polite to say this, but I will. I would submit than the closing admin, in ignoring the consensus at WP:NOLYMPICS (including multiple, including recent, efforts to change it) and numerous prior deletion discussions regarding Olympic competitors, as well as the relatively even balance of the comparatively few !votes of those who actually responded to this particular discussion, did err. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SNGs are commonly misunderstood to stand in place of GNG :) ——Serial 16:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be because WP:N itself says that "[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (my emphasis). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it OK to put undersourced biographies in the mainspace!—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources are needed for a mainspace article? Please can you link to the policy which states this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, you could get away with one source if it's comprehensive enough to verify every fact in the article: WP:V. Custom and practice requires at least two, which is based on the plural word "sources" in the guideline (not policy) at WP:N; but at DRV, where almost everything we see is contentious, we normally ask for three because three is usually enough to stop people quibbling about whether a source is reliable enough to pass. Biographical articles are held to a higher standard. I think you know all this perfectly well.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know well that starting a stub with 1 reliable good source is not a reason for deletion. If it’s not a policy, this is not the place to share your opinion. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by this notion. How do you think deletion review could build a consensus if users didn't share their opinions?—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unspoken implication is that only contrary opinions are prohibited. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There was no consensus in the AFD to delete; the !votes were equally divided. The closer simply cast a supervote, implementing their own policy preference on an issue where that position is not supported by consensus. While the closer alluded to "persuasive arguments that there are no sources" available, it is clear that no such "arguments" were made; instead, the delete !voters simply asserted that because they could not locate useful sources online, that proved that no useful print sources existed. That is hardly a "persuasive" argument; it is more accurately characterized as nonsensical. The closing admin may have an antipathy toward unfinished articles, but that is not policy. A substantial part of the community, potentially consensus-level, supports the practice of writing stub articles on historical figures who meet SNG requirements, so long as the information is accurate and includes no controversial elements, and expanding them as additional information is provided. Maintaining such articles, like the ones at issue here, is much more in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus to delete was reached at the AfD. If enough sourcing to sustain a biography turns up, the articles can be recreated. For now, it's probably enough to list them on a page like France_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics#Cycling since we lack any actual biographical information. People really need to stop pretending that subject-specific notability guidelines function as a permanent exemption to WP:V and WP:N. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what this is about “If enough sourcing to sustain a biography turns up, the articles can be recreated.” As more info came available, and now meeting the basics of WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NCYCLING. So please state what in policy “enough sources” is. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You found one database entry that seems to verify one cyclist's first name. We still lack any sort of biographical information on this man or any of the others in this DRV. People need to stop assuming that technically meeting some SNG is both a permanent exemption from our verifiability and notability requirements and an automatic entitlement to a shrine. In this case there is already a superior way to present this information is in a list covering the French cycling team of 1900, which literally already contains all the information these "articles" would. If your article amounts to three cells of an excel spreadsheet, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Anyway, this arguing not the purpose of DRV-- the purpose is to determine whether consensus was reached at the AfD (it was) and whether the closing administrator judged it correctly (he did). Reyk _YO! 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A supervote contrary to WP:DGFA as the closer did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants, inventing a consensus when there was clearly no agreement. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn WP:N itself says that "[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (my emphasis). "These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic) or that sourcing will likely be written ... These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." (my emphasis). Also, a supervote was contrary to WP:DGFA, as the closer did not respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants, inventing a consensus when there was clearly no agreement.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closer was correct that passing the SNG only creates a "presumption" of notability, not a guarantee. That presumption is not upheld if only bare statistics and not even a first name exists, failing GNG. Applying "automatic notability" is not consistent with good practices, and I do not feel that the NOLY SNG applies to the 1900 Olympics as it might today. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That presumption IS upheld. The SNG is the source of good practice, notwithstanding someone's individual opinion. NOLY SNG applies to all Olympic Games. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Notability was established for all the articles listed, and a WP:SUPERVOTE was used in closing the discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OVERTURN Notability rules are quite clear, it has to pass the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline. You can't just ignore the subject specific guidelines because you don't think everyone who participated in the Olympics is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, while every pop culture person who ever had a publicist get them written up in a couple of news sources does. Dream Focus 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they pass a subject specific guideline (and the hint is in the word "guideline") they can still be deleted if they fail GNG, or in the case of some of these WP:V (which is a policy). Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of that, WP:SPORTCRIT clearly says trivial coverage and indiscriminate database scraping don't satisfy notability requirements. If one of the subordinate SNGs conflicts with that, then too bad for the SNG. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trivial coverage or indiscriminate database scraping here, so that's not applicable.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse We need reliable sources, WP:V is not an option. Trying to create an article on a person who there is so little information about that we don't even know their first name, is frankly ridiculous. I have no idea why people are trying to say that creating incomplete articles, based on incomplete or in some cases user-generated sources, is a good thing. Biographies need to be done properly. Doing them in this half-arsed way is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Both NSPORT and the GNG are presumed forms of notability that allow a standalone article to be created based on miniminal sourcing or meeting a certain milestone (in the case of NSPORT), but that presumption can be challenge if the nominator shows that there does not exist any additional sourcing to build a reasonable full article about the topic, in which case deletion is appropriate. The original AFD nominator appears to have done that by showing that simply having a last name in the listings of a century-old sporting event does not lead to finding any further sources. The onus was one those wanting to keep to prove out these are verified people and find additional sources; that failed to happen. The closures as deletions were fully appropriate. If any editor wants to spend the time to research any specific person and write a more comprehensive article that surpasses just the fact some participation at one event happened, they can do so and get the article restored, but the deletion was in line with NSPORT and its relationship to WP:N and other policies. --Masem (t) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is about that there is more information now about the people available: full name, teams the rode with. So now it’s possible to start searching for more information about these notable cyclists. This was not possible at the time of the AFD. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying you can't write an article based on substantial sources when and if they can be found. You don't need the deleted articles to be restored to do that; they had no content. This is the best way forward. Everyone wins: the encyclopedia gets some credible biographies; those of us who care for quality over quantity don't get inclusion criteria watered down to irrelevance; and you get to write the articles you want. I'm 98% confident that, if the empty articles get restored, they'll just be left to languish and never get improved. Reyk _YO! 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not asking the articles to be restored. And yes, I started writing an article with more information, but can’t continue adding more information I found in an old newspaper(!) If more information is found I don’t want that’s be deleted. I started the article of Guilio Vianzino, now with his fullname. I added information about the team he was riding for his training location and where he lived. I wanted to be sure the article is allowed to be kept, so I started this discussion. As I was afraid of, the article was deleted immediately. Sad to see this, as I found information in an Italian newspaper about a local race. Also now the teams of a few French people are known, I found some bits and peaces about 1 guy. As it’s possible to still find information on these guys, I want that’s possible to recreate the article when more information became available. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which you can ask to USERIFY then, rather than challenge the deletion. But its not good for WP in the long run to have short stubby articles on persons - even with full names known - notable for only one sporting event from a century ago, compared to today. If you can add enough to show more than participation, then you're at least giving some reason to keep. Again, NSPORT is still a presumption of notability that can be challenged, it is not "this condition is met, the article must stay". --Masem (t) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of recentism is the stuff that is routinely rejected by consensus when people try to change NOLY. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't recentism, it's a plain fact that Olympic athletes today are often professional atheletes well established to be among the world's best, while in 1900 they were amateurs who were excellent at their sport but did not necessarily meet the rigorous global qualification process there is now. NSPORT says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Note that "the inclusion critera" specifically links to GNG, which is not completely dismissed even if NOLY/another subcriterion is met, with this SNG overriding indefinitely. "Likely" does not mean "guaranteed", and there is very simply no basis to say that meeting NOLY means GNG and any expecation of sources beyond the (incomplete) statistics of a single event goes down the shitter even when such "sufficient sources" do not actually exist. NOLY doesn't necessarily need to be changed, rather there must be understanding that it's not an absolute guarantee. Not to mention that such statistics of the notable event including the name and perfomance are in fact preserved, so that a duplicative stand-alone article is not mandatory. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG most certainly overrides GNG in the presumption of notability. WP:N says so in black and white. You have no knowledge that sufficient sources do not exist.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has consistently been that those "amateurs who were excellent at their sport" are notable enough to include. You want to override that longstanding general consensus, you should have to do better than an evenly divided !vote where the closer uses a WP:SUPERVOTE to ignore the people pointing to said longstanding general consensus to keep Olympic athletes--of all eras--as notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, though; as a number of people have already pointed out, regardless of whether they're notable or not, if insufficient RS are available to write the article, then there can be no article. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Regardless of whether they're notable or not"? The only reason given to delete is notability. There are plenty of reliable sources. The Official Reports, the IOC website, Mallon's books, Olympedia, etc. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for notability we look at WP:GNG; "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is a long way from "a few statistical mentions on the Internet from which we can't even determine their full name". Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close whcih misread the discussion (should have been no consensus) and IMO misinterpreted the SNG. But then draftify or userfy until somewhat better sources are found and added to the texts. Alternatively, permit recreation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse largely per Masem, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG applied correctly, no error on closer's part. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Oh for pity's sake. NSPORTS is bloody well clear: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." There is nothing in NSPORTS guaranteeing an automatic exemption from the GNG. Beyond that, the GNG is clear as well: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis in the original) The most reliable of sources, setting forth a trivial mention, does not satisfy the GNG.
The bottom line was that the closing admin/s administered policy and the pertinent notability guidelines correctly, and were under no onus to slavishly obey a headcount. DRV is not for relitigating closes that you don't like. Ravenswing 06:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic) or that sourcing will likely be written ... These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline." I propose a 30-year limit from the day that an article is created in Wikipedia as being reasonable.Jeff in CA (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serious proposals only, please. I suggest thirty days. Wikipedia hasn't even been around for 30 years yet. An exemption this long might as well be permanent. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, if you asked what I'd like to see enacted? That from three days after an article was created, it would be subject to immediate speedy deletion if the article didn't contain -- not "demonstrated to exist somewhere," not "seems like there are sources" -- multiple reliable sources with substantive information sufficient to meet the GNG ... that putting in such sources was a prerequisite to the article being in namespace. In short, if the editor writing an article can't be bothered to properly source it (and from where, pray, is that editor coming up with the information to write that article if not from reliable sources?), it shouldn't be in namespace until that happens. That would abolish the need for SNGs, all but abolish XfD, abolish a lot of hassle for admins and vandal fighters, make a lot of lives a lot simpler. Doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever happening, but even so. Ravenswing 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Ugh. I think the closer is right on policy and right about the close. If there are no independent sources, the article must be deleted. That said, there is a recognition by all in the discussion that these athletes did participate in the Olympics and would meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Instead of a close of a delete, I think a better option would have been to relist with a specific question to evaluate the existing sources. --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ummm ... with respect, I would submit that asserting that the Endorse voters all believe that these cyclists meet WP's notability standards is dramatically in opposition to what we've actually said. Ravenswing 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would question inclusion if there was adequate independent sourcing of each subject - that is, no one is questioning WP:NOLYMPICS - only whether the sourcing is adequate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope and trust none of us would. The fact is, though, that ~~six of the seven~~ ten of the eleven Endorse voters believe that there is no adequate sourcing for these articles, and suggesting that we feel otherwise is seriously mistaken. Ravenswing 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ravenswing. You're reading more into our words than we put there. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The closer properly applied the guidelines outlined in the very FAQ of NSPORTS and GNG, while not being swayed by a head count. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If there is so little written about a person that we cannot even discern his first name, there can be no question that WP:V is not met. The burden of proof sits on those seeking to include information. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:NOLYMPICS is badly flawed because we frequently ignore WP:GNG in interpreting the SNG, which is incorrect (everything must ultimately pass WP:GNG.) If more than a microstub can be written about any of these people, then we can have an article, but I don't see that being the case here yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per BK, Masem, NOTAVOTE, and V policy being non optional. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
overturn It has been shown there isadditional information. I don't think there is consensus about the relationships between the UNG and the SNG for sports We could decide that the SNG is an alternative, expanding notability in that area rather than a limitation decreasing it, or that it is a limitation, or even that both have an equal role and the relationship in any one case is to be determined individually. Personally I preferred it should be a limitation on being GNG but I also think that should be much narrower than it currently is. My !vote is therefor based on the principle which I think should be applied rather than the individual instances DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per many of the above (and as the original nominator), and seriously questioning the reliability of Olympedia. At the time of the AfD, no "Guilio Vianzino" existed at Olympedia as far as I can tell (as can be seen on the Internet Archive, in June he was still simply "Vianzino"[1]). Now suddenly this "name" appears, even though the first name "Guilio" didn't exist at all in Italy (for example, not a single person with that name is listed at it.wikipedia). The source for this change? Unknown. Verifiability? None at all. They probably meant to use the name "Giulio", which is a common Italian name, but that one as well is completely unverifiable. When a website suddenly posts new information right after an AfD ended in delete, and this information is then used to recreate an article and challenge the AfD outcome, but the new information turns out to be incorrect, then I get a rather bad feeling about all of this, and see this more as a stronger reason to delete this (as the one source that was used in these articles turns out to be less reliable than was thought), not a reason to overturn this at all. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(addendum), oh and the claim that "for this particilar person, Franzen was a member of "Union Vélocipédique de France", so it's likely information on him with this information can be found in old newspapers. " is not actually helpful either; the Union Velocipédique is simply the national cylists union, where every cyclist who competed in races in France was a member of. Basically, we had "Franzen was a French cyclist", and the info you add tells us "Franzen was a French cyclist". This helps nothing at all in finding information in old newspapers, the membership doesn't narrow things down one iota. Here as well, it looks as if this "new" information has been added to the site very recently, even though it is not an affiliation as used for other sporters (where a specific club is added) but a membership of the national cycling union. People seem to be adding random information (in one case wrong, in the other case trivial and wrong as well if intended as a club) and then others(?) are using that information to justify having articles on these people here. Instead of this DRV, it may be time to disqualify this source from being used, as people seem to be adding whatever they want to it. Fram (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guilio is an existing first name (including in Italy) see here. Also nobody at the Italian wiki has surname “ Vianzino“; so that doesn’t say anything. The name can be found in old Italian newspapers. (And no, I don’t have access to the Olympic database and didn’t send the information.) SportsOlympic (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use something like namespedia to support your claims. Their most common "Guilio" is "Guilio Meroni" (twice), which only exists in Namespedia.[2]. Their second result, Guilion Dallocchio, only at namespedia[3]. There is a Giulio Dallochio though[4]. The most common "Guilio" one can find are all in English-speaking countries, and are at first misspellings of Giulio (since then, it seems to have been used in the US a few times). No evidence of any Guilio in Italy, although there is plenty of evidence that Vianzino existed as an (uncommon) name. Fram (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed to investigate this here. The point is, it's an existing name and under this name he also appears in at least 1 old newspaper. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for the moment how your first point is not supported by anything at all, how do you know that "he also appears in at least 1 old newspaper"? Perhaps you could then provide that information here (name and date of the newspaper, link if possible)? Fram (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know that myself. You assert that the name appears in old newspapers. Which ones, and on what dates? Ravenswing 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 July 2020[edit]