Ibrahim Tondi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ibrahim Tondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed redirect. Fails WP:NOLY, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Athlete who ran several seconds behind the world elite, but still competed in the Olympics on a quota. Found no coverage of his two top-8th placements in regional competitions either, which would have been his only achievements. (Although he finished almost 4 seconds behind the winner there as well) Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, those are only passing mentions or statistical databases including literal result pages, also "reinforced" with articles that don't mention Tondi at all, such as "Dakar meeting marks start of 2004 AAC track circuit | NEWS | World Athletics". Also, 22.78 seconds for 200 m is not an international standard of athletics, it is on par with the results achieved by thousands of apt 16-17 year old boys every year. The article doesn't contain a single WP:SIGCOV source and I couldn't find any either. Geschichte (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you for your nomination because it helps us improve the article.
    It's incorrect to apply a global standard of achievement to athletes from non-first world countries, that isn't how notability works – for example, the Indian record-holder in the 100 metres Amiya Kumar Mallick only has a personal best of 10.26 seconds, not even fast enough to qualify for most high-level athletics meetings and a time that many American high school boys have beaten, yet he is still famous as the fastest from his home country and notable for an article.
    I thought about this for a while, even before making my improvements, and have concluded that Wikipedia policies lean in favor of keeping the Tondi article. Tondi meets WP:NATH as a national record holder and presumed national champion (as he was the only male Nigerien selected). Understanding that, we know that, "Significant coverage is likely to exist". WP:BASIC says that as long as significant coverage exists – which we know is true due to NATH – Tondi is presumed notable, and passes the Wikipedia guidelines check. Just because we don't have the significant coverage or "the good stuff" right now linked in the article, doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, as simply knowing that sources exist can be sufficient for keeping an article. This overrides WP:SPORTCRIT prong five, as a more general guideline can apply even in the case where more specific guidelines may conflict.
    In this case, we know the sources exist as several articles about races Tondi was in and placed in are paywalled, and we haven't even begun to search the Nigerien newspaper archives which surely covered Tondi as the sole male representative from their nation in the marquee sport at the 2008 Olympic Games. --Habst (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Sources in the article are passing mentions in routine event recaps and pure stats, not SIGCOV. 1, 5-9, 11, 12 (Tilastopaja) are all primary, trivial stats reports Red XN. 2, 3, & 10 (Worldathletics) are more stats/results pages from a non-independent body Red XN. 4 (L'Express/AllAfrica) seems to be a routine event recap with at most a passing mention of Tondi Red XN. My own search on Proquest, archive.org, and Newspaper Archive yielded a single result, which was his name in a results list.
We do not apply different standards of achievement to subjects from developing countries, mostly because that is not how GNG notability works anyway but also because that would be demeaning.
We had a recent global RfC that found strong consensus in requiring all sportsperson articles contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV. This has been upheld in hundreds of AfDs by now. The presumption that SIGCOV is "likely to exist" is explicitly different from the presumptions that SIGCOV does exist or that the subject is inherently notable; this was determined by the same RfC. The claim that a "likelihood" of coverage existing afforded by meeting an NSPORT sport-specific criterion (which the subject here does not) is equivalent to "SIGCOV exists", and therefore satisfies BASIC, is absurd and completely unsupported by P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response.
We had a recent global RfC that found strong consensus in requiring all sportsperson articles contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV – I don't think that's an accurate way to describe WP:NSPORTS2022 – it certainly does not describe the current landscape as this extended content box shows. If you look at the first thread of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#What do we do when..., you can see that the "key change" of NSPORTS2022 was the removal of participation-based criteria (which does not apply to this subject as he did more than participate). The other changes were either changes of wording that don't affect this specific case, or changes that are inconsequential because the subject fulfills the broader policy of WP:BASIC.
The presumption that SIGCOV is "likely to exist" is explicitly different from the presumptions that SIGCOV does exist or that the subject is inherently notable – I understand that the wording was changed from "presumed notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist", but I think that these statements are effectively a distinction without a difference, as explained in the above-linked talk. The wording may be different, but the policy implications are the same – if we can know that significant coverage exists, by any process, then that fulfills the criteria of WP:BASIC which determines notability. This is plainly stated by Wikipedia policies.
The argument that a subject can pass a broader guideline like WP:BASIC but fail a topic-specific supplemental guideline like WP:SPORTBASIC and thus be deleted, was tested in Clive Sands, with the result of the discussion being Keep. So clearly, broader guidelines still apply even in cases where there are also topic-specific rules – e.g. imagine if the Alan Turing article was deleted on the basis that he was not a fast enough marathon runner. --Habst (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is absolutely the correct description of that RfC, as has been explained to you by numerous editors including the drafter admin @Cbl62. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on sportspeople, many of which are poorly sourced or don't meet NSPORT. It's pure OSE to claim the fact that any of those haven't yet been deleted is evidence SPORTCRIT #5 isn't observed. I could link far more that have been deleted, anyway. The talk at NSPORT is just more of your misconceptions about notability guidelines and Wikipedia in general, which multiple other editors have since rebutted. No one else seems to have trouble comprehending what downgrading "presumed notable" to "SIGCOV is likely to exist" means. If you you've read the RfC and the dozens of talk page discussions and still don't get it then that's your problem.
Clive Sands was definitely not kept because of BASIC and the outcome most certainly does not imply that meeting BASIC overrides failing SPORTCRIT. Alvaldi's comment was rebutting the clueless claim that failing a sport-specific criterion overrode meeting GNG, which is explicitly addressed at N. That is not comparable to BASIC vs SPORTCRIT. And your Alan Turing comparison just raises CIR concerns. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. Wikipedia policy is both decided and enforced by consensus – this means that any one person doesn't decide how policy is enforced, even though I greatly respect @Cbl62 and agree with them more often than not. It also means that case studies looking at the actual decisions made by editors can sometimes be more helpful than proscriptive analysis.
I think that the key change of WP:NSPORTS2022 was to remove participation-only criteria, which was reiterated by other editors in the linked discussion – the other changes don't affect WP:BASIC anyways, and the intention of the proposal was never to override that broader guideline.
My point in linking the Clive Sands case was to show that supplemental guidelines do not override broader guidelines, so if we can prove that WP:BASIC is met, then WP:SPORTCRIT is not necessary. Clive Sands was decided in part based on that principle.
I'd like to finish by reiterating that I greatly respect your work on Wikipedia, and I would much rather discuss the article or its sources than the behavior of other editors. --Habst (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are ignoring the people who actually participated in the RfC, the RfC text itself, and the thousands of AfDs that have resulted in deletes as a consequence of the RfC and SPORTCRIT #5 specifically. You are also ignoring the multiple successful mass-draftification RfCs that draftified Lugnuts stubs primarily on the basis of their failing SPORTCRIT #5 (those alone account for around 2000 athlete bios that have been removed from mainspace for this reason). There is overwhelming practical consensus against you.
Clive Sands was kept based entirely on editors deciding he met GNG and the fact that at no point has failing NSPORT sport-specific criteria but demonstrably meeting GNG meant a subject was not notable. There were zero aspects of it that support your idiosyncratic interpretation that BASIC automatically overrules a site-wide consensus, and certainly nothing that suggests BASIC can be met by the mere presumption that SIGCOV is likely to exist.
Respect other editors' time, recognize what it means to have a 56% AfD match rate, and stop bludgeoning these discussions with anti-consensus, anti-P&G arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response because I appreciate your contributions even when we don't agree all the time.
Deletion discussions on Wikipedia are just that – discussions – where we can discuss and debate Wikipedia polices and how they apply to articles. Many Wikipedia policies are subjective, and just as there have been many AfDs that have resulted in deletes, there have also been many AfDs not resulting in deletes similar to the subject we're discussing now, such as Kyohei Ushio or Abdou Manzo.
WP:BASIC is a Wikipedia accepted guideline since at least 2007, and if an article can be demonstrated to have met the basic notability guidelines for people, I think that the subject can be determined to be notable – this is regardless of any topic-specific supplementary guidelines. Though of course not exactly the same, my point in linking the Sands case was to show that broader guidelines can override topic specific guidelines if circumstances allow for it.
To me, it is the greatest sign of respect to engage respectfully with editors who you disagree with. I didn't know that there was a tool to count AfD match rates, but when I did a web search for it this essay was the first result: Wikipedia:AfD stats don't measure what you think. I don't think any editor should be asked to not participate in discussions simply because their opinions do not align with the majority most (or in this case, some) of the time, and I would much rather discuss the subject's notability than concerns about editor behavior. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories