Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Meyer

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 (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Meyer

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

Judoka with no significant coverage and a world ranking of 75th. Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is not enough to show notability. Continental gold medal winners have been deleted as non-notable.Jakejr (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is a very significant achievement. WP:NSPORT is clear 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" (for example athletes pass WP:NSPORT if they come in the top 8 of a Commonwealth games event). In addition to the news article already cited, [1] and [2] were easy to find. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting the notability criteria for track and field, not judo. The Commonwealth Games is not the highest level, apparent if winning a medal produces a rank of 75. Highest level generally considered to be Olympics or good performance at world championships.Jakejr (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why of a ranking of 75th in the world implies non-notability. St Anselm (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. 75 judoka times 14 divisions times 12 ratings a year equals a lot of possibly notable judoka. More importantly, a ranking that low indicates a lack of success at major competitions. There was a reason she didn't qualify for the world championships which had 40 in her division. If you're not among the top 40 I would question how notable you really are. We wouldn't say the 75th place finisher in the 100m at the world athletic championships was notable.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we would - because just competing in the championships would make you notable. (In the 2013 World Championships, there were, in fact, exactly 75 competitors.) Or to take another example, there are always 128 competitors in the main singles draw of a tennis grand slam. And we say they are notable simply for being there. (OK, technically we don't say that, but we presume notability for all who make it.) St Anselm (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games is notable.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Commonwealth Games medal winners should always be kept. The track and field theshhold is lower, of course - top eight rather than top three. The other CG sports explicitly mentioned at WP:NSPORT are Badminton, which uses top eight as well, and gymnastics and triathlon, which both use top three. It is clear that the presumption of notability for CG medallists is in the spirit of the notability guidelines. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE would support that if she had multiple medals, but not one.Jakejr (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very old essay indeed that you're quoting! WP:NSPORT would be more in keeping with current standards. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I don't find any judo criteria on Wikipedia and the only martial arts criteria is mixed martial arts, which does not seem to be the same thing. However, she also won a bronze medal in 2013 at a World Cup Event in Samoa [3] and this article about it seems to indicate that she had also done it the previous year. SusunW (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a little more to her article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2015 (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.