Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janni Bach

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 (nominator withdrew nomination). (non-admin closure) Kb.au (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janni Bach

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

A biographical article without serious info about the person behind the sporter. The Banner talk 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Are you serious; with your experience? That has never been a guideline. Notable, see WP:NOLYMPICS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note nominater has already been told many times to read WP:before. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author is now blocked for sockpuppetry. The Banner talk 00:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Olympic competitors are notable by default, if there are other issues these can simply be fixed. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. There's also coverage here about her being part of the first-ever women's handball team for Australia at the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the WP:NOLYMPICS requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NSPORTS (of which WP:NOLYMPICS is a subsection) clearly states that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Merely being an Olympian is not enough, it has to be shown that she meets the GNG. I am not convinced of this based on the article and the links above. The coverage of her is largely either press releases (and therefore not independent of subject) or falls into the "directory entry" style of page which isn't substantial enough. Would be happy to be proven wrong by the presentation of sources that are reliable, substantial, and independent of the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I do not know whether it is or is not better for the good of WP that we have the practice of always keeping these articles, but we always do. The basis is either that the fact of their competing at this level shows there must have been sources for notability, or that the very fact is so noteworthy that it in effect forms a separate guideline or an exception to the usual guideline (in actual practice , these two justification give the same result). We make the guidelines ourselves, and we decide ourselves by consensus how to interpret them. It is not a good idea to change an established consensus like this on a very important subject field without an extensive general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject at least meets WP:NOLYMPICS. But is that enough?

I have added a couple of sources with trivial mentions, but also an article from The Sydney Morning Herald about her and her husband Peter, also a handball player (photo), who likewise played for the Australia national handball team at the 2000 Olympics.

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (permalink) says in bold in the lede:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

but the transcluded FAQ (permalink) in A1 and A2 seems to suggest that a keep under a sport-specific criterion is only temporary and is in expectance of sources being found to reference the BLP to GNG/BASIC.

I'd be surprised if Danish newspapers had not written about Janni and Peter Bach, but back in 2000, not a lot of news were put online in Denmark. I'm willing to follow up and try to find offline sources. Sam Sailor 11:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request close as speedy keep Although the article is created by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry, the present improvements lift it above the critical level. Deletion would only mean recreation straight away but by another user with about the same content. Nobody will win anything by deletion at this stage. So, I withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whenever an article whose subject meets a criteria listed at WP:NSPORT is put to AfD, there's simply a snowshower of keeps without any deeper analysis of the subject's notability. Subject specific notability guidelines (like the GNG) are just that: guidelines. NSPORT goes so far as to say its criterion are "merely rules of thumb" to guide editors in determining whether an article meets the WP:GNG. I've seen similar issues in other AfDs where editors will treat WikiProject specific notability essays as hard-and-fast rules. Kb.au (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that you have noticed that the author is a sockpuppeteer. The Banner talk 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep With people unwilling to address the sockpuppetry, I accept the improvements of the article. Any removal will now result in a immediate recreation, just giving more work The Banner talk 16:14, 19 February 2018 (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.