Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Badra

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. I am going to go ahead and close this based on WP:SNOWBALL. Article has greatly improved since the point it was nominated, including information that credibly grants notability. The only standing delete vote cites a lack of evidence from reliable sources, which has been provided since that delete comment was made. Safiel (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Badra

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

I procedurally declined the PROD on the article, since the article had been earlier prodded and declined. In any event, notability is questionable. I am not familiar with the sport, nor with whether the Mr. World competition is a notable enough competition to grant the subject notability by the fact that he won it. Other than that, a Google search leads me to weak ~~delete~~ ~~at the moment~~. Change to keep. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG to me, though I admit i'm not familiar with bodybuilding either. Ansh666 06:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Improved a lot, so Keep and improve further - I'm also like below concerned about WP:RS, but he seems notable enough at this point. Ansh666 16:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shortage of evidence from reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial contributors to the article notice for review
Keep. this article has been significantly updated with the required secondary & tertiary sources, requesting the nominating editor to Withdrawn by nominator - NikkosInc (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should note that even if I was inclined to withdraw this AfD, I cannot as there are valid delete votes present. Just be patient for 5 more days and let this work itself out. As it stands right now, the article will probably survive this AfD as a no consensus. Safiel (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the bodybuilding history has not been transferred onto the cloud for reference especially events that occurred prior to 1996- deleting this article will only contribute to less coverage of this history as it relates directly to World History- as bodybuilding has been a way for some nations to connect to others through this sport, Sometimes more than Olympic Athletes, Bodybuilders has been the iconic symbol of pride for nations and the iconic symbol of human development- dating before the Roman Era to Greek Era to Biblical - the development of the Human body was recorded in History and captured in Sculptures we see in museums (ie the Sculpture of David as it reflects the elite level of fitness of the human body of the time). So much of that history was lost, we should do our best to allow our history be preserved- especially the history that was pre-internet - for future generations to have references that our generation lost. - NikkosInc (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice. I share RHaworth's concern that the article is lacking in reliable sources. There are currently four sources cited in the article: Muscular Development magazine, a local newspaper, published correspondence by a journalist, and the Arab Press. It's borderline, but since the article is so new, I'd rather give it some more time to develop. If, after a month or three, the sourcing problems are still there, then I say it's in order to open a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first prod'ed this article. It has improved since then. The author would have been better to create a better draft first. --evrik ^(talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not familiar with the sport either, but it does look as though it's been significally improved since the first and second prod's. Dusti^*poke* 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. World (1st in 1988), Mr. America (3rd in 1989)and Mr. Universe (2nd in 1989) definitely make him notable Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:37, 28 June 2013 (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.