Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario Poggi

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. A very clear consensus that this athlete meets notability standards. Incidentally, there is a further source available here. If the nominator wishes to pursue a merge/redirect then this should be done separately as an editorial action. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dario Poggi

I want to make something very clear from the get-go of this AfD - I am NOT attempting to get this page deleted - I only want to see it converted into a redirect. I attempted to do this on my own, but was reverted; therefore I am bringing the issue to AfD. Here's my simple rationale. In this AfD, it was decided, for various reasons, that WP:ATHLETE does not supercede Wikipedia's general WP:N requirements. In cases where there are no sources and it is impossible to write a neutral article about an individual, an athlete page redirecting to a relevant list is permissible. Speculation is not good enough; saying that "there may be sources" is irrelevant. I have performed a good-faith search, and the onus is, and always has been, on the person who adds the material to provide notability and sourcing. There are literally hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that say nothing but "So and so was a bobsledder from country X who did not medal at the Olympic games" and have no potential for expansion. There is nothing that could not be presented in a bigger list. Cheers, CP 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect - per CP. Chris (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - He competed in two Winter Olympics and did finish in the top ten in one of them. It also fits the notability requirement of WP:BIO regarding athletes. Changed from redirect after some thought and review. Chris (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per CP. Julesn84 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose There hasn't even been a talk page created for the article. After the redirect, then the revert, IMHO the next step is discuss on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Finished sixth is notable enough. I think its important to counteract systematic bias and include people from early periods. It is a shame if there isn't much info about but I genuinely believe the sportsman is notable enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. An olympic athlete is notable. Since he competed in two winter olympics the redirect to one of the events (and not even the one the article indicates was his best result) was clearly inappropriate and the revert was correct. Quale (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect appropriately. The guy finished sixth. How far down the ladder do we go for Olympic notability? Seventh? Eighth? Dead last? Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Olympic Athletes are not notable in their own right. According to our Olympics article, there are roughly eleven thousand athletes competing in any given Olympiad, and clearly we do not need an article on every single one of them. Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not? Wikipedia isn't paper. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think every competitior should have an article either. but I certainly think Top 10 fits notability and competing in two olympics. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cube lurker. Please keep AfD for Article for deletion. Editor disputes go elsewhere and step 1 was Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • AFD has been the only way to get any serious discussion on this important issue going, so I stand by my decision fully. I've tried to discuss things identical Olympic athlete issues numerous times on other forums and nothing - either for or against my ideas - ever comes out of it. Per WP:IAR if a rule prevents you from improving [...] Wikipedia, ignore it. Cheers, CP 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since this guy played in two Olympics, there's no obvious single target for a redirect. An individual article is more appropriate in this case, even if the article is very short. There's nothing wrong with simply saying as much as we can about him. After all, articles in real encyclopedias vary wildly in length.

Out of curiosity, where did you search? I think the best source of information would be Italian newspapers from the 1930s and 1940s, most of which won't be archived online. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I never say anymore what kind of searching I do for two reasons: For one thing, people just use it as an excuse to tear apart your argument but, more importantly, what everyone seems to forget is the onus is on the person who adds the material to do the searching to prove notability and the existence of sources. If we did it the other way (ie. the person who wants to delete has to prove non-notability) then nothing aside from obvious hoaxes would ever get deleted, because people could just say "well there could be sources. I will say that Google was not my only search mechanism. I've kind of given up on this anyways and decided to rant on my user page instead. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - official 1936 Olympic report source added to article. Chris (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think so Zagalejo. I;m certain there would something in Italian libraries and newspapers on it. The Internet is still really in its infancy, but I am certain over time more info will spread online. But we can't ignore people because google isn't coming up with the goods. If they wer researched I'm sure they could be expanded. It is partly our task I think to get stuff onto the web that has never been here before ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And, as per above, we can't assume that everyone is notable despite an absence of Google sourcing. It's an imperfect method, but it's certainly better than saying "let's speculate that this person is famous even though we have no evidence," which is why the onus is on the person who "gets stuff onto the web that has never been here before" to provide those offline references. Again, as per above, I've kind of given up on caring anymore. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be accepted that Olympians were inherently notable, by virtue of their accomplishments. As long as we can verify that they played in the Olympics, I don't see any problems. Zagalejo^^^ 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Just participating in the Olympics meets established notability guidlines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. per WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. The article is thin, but that is to be expected when the article is about someone from the 1930s in a non-anglophone country. Participation in the Olympics illustrates that you are top-of-the-field at the national level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE. I find Blofeld of Spectre's reasoning compelling. We know Poggi is notable, so we should have this article. What a shame: 1948 should have been his fourth Olympics, not his second, in a different world. Darkspots (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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.