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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
competed in 1 event, 8th place: is this a joke? Pol098 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless including every Olympian ever is some kind of precedent I'm not aware of. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. An Olympian has got to be known for something or accomplished something of note. The above seems nothing more than an obscure athlete. --† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He came eighth- in the world. This is good enough, especially for the early pioneers of the sport. A lot of people have not reached #8 in the world. Why are competitors on reality shows and bandcruft and small businesses get off so lightly??? This is written by User:Jonel, with more than 5000 edits, who has greatly expanded the Olympic coverage on WP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a joke, it is referenced, and click "what links here".Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merely playing Major League baseball or NFL football is sufficient to have an article. The Olympics represent a similar level of notability for many lesser-known sports. See notability, people still alive.--djrobgordon 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 2004 would give a person a claim to being the 8th-best archer in the world. Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 1900 meant that he was the 8th-best archer who happened to be at the Paris World's Fair that day. The 1900 Summer Olympics were not contested at the same level of competition as contemporary Olympics, as suggested by the fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name. Note that Archery at the 1900 Summer Olympics indicates that only three countries (France, Belgium, and Netherlands) competed in archery at that Olympics, and none of the Dutch archers' names are known. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the old days the level and consistency of sport was not that great - does that mean that the forefathers of sport should be deleted?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My first inclination was "delete," but djrobgordon and Blnguyen make good points. dbtfztalk 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Olympians. Participation in the Olympic Games is certainly sufficient for notability. As for the "fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name", please note that all Olympic Reports until 1964 similarly "failed". As for having every Olympian, please check Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics. It includes every Olympian for whom we have a name from the 1896 Games. -- Jonel | Speak 05:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The official Olympic reports included athletes' first names well before 1964; see [1] for examples. Note that the 1960 Summer Olympics report devoted over 200 pages to a list of every athlete participating in the Games, including their full names, dates of birth, places of birth, heights, and weights, none of which are known in the case of Lecomte. Furthermore, even if an athlete's full name had not been printed in the official report, his or her full name would be known if they had accomplished something of merit -- it's not as though sports historians are wondering, "I wonder who this Ewry is, who won 3 gold medals at Paris 1900?" They know who he is. I guess I'm much in the minority here, but I do not think that merely competing in the 1900 Olympics is an accomplishment comparable to competing in the contemporary Olympics in the 21st century, since the idea of having to qualify for one's national team was a minor aspect or nonexistent in 1900. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good point by Blnguyen. --Hansnesse 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he's an Olympian. In this world of non-notable computer programmers, launderers who have written encyclopedia articles about themselves, and Rachel Clemons, an Olympian is a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. Wiwaxia 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Olympians are notable enough. Provided this athelete has won awards in other games and competitions. --Terence Ong 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being selected to represent your country at the Olympic Games imbues more than enough notability, without anything else being necessary. Proto||type 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per. Jonel. That's why I qualified my earlier delete vote - I didn't know if there was an include-all precedent like in other sports. Apparently there is... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After myself proposing this for deletion I have investigated further, and replaced what must be the spurious mention of Beaudoin in article by Lecomte, which leaves it making sense (I have also rewritten the text). The article originally made no sense, asserting nothing whatsoever about Lecomte. Pol098 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blnguyen Avi 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not certain at this moment if I would support the blanket statement that all Olympic athletes are notable. However, I certainly support the idea that being an Olympian should change the burden of proof. Instead of having to demonstrate his worthiness to include him in the WP, we should have to demonstrate his lack of worthiness to keep him out of the WP. He's an Olympian and there's no compelling reason not to include him. -- Don Sowell 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not knowing his first name might demonstrate unworthiness! ;-) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (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.