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 delete. See discussion at ANI. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Niter[edit]

Robert Niter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A recent winner of championship, a model, a bodybuilder who is not in the news. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes from previous AFD was from IPs and a not-very-active editor. --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An American professional bodubuilder is not in the news. The answer to the IP's query (who surprisingly knows about WP:BEFORE) is this: He is nowhere mentioned in any reliablenewspaper, website, magazine, bodybuilding magazine, even for once. The only result is about a Staff Serageant and even that mention is not detailed. Keep votes by IP editors, article creators and accounts with very less edits is not proper reason to close this discussion. Thanks Marvellous Spider-Man 04:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator for AFD states, "The keep votes from previous AFD was from IPs and a not-very-active editor." According to Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia welcomes anyone to make contributions to articles, regardless of IPs or level of activity. Specifically, it reads, "You do not even have to log in to edit articles on Wikipedia. Just about anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in." see WP:CTW Furthermore, recommend the nominator review WP:DEL-REASON. In its current standing, the deletion reason does not coincide entirely with Wikipedia's deletion reason. I would encourage the nominator to focus on the article rather than contributor standing to eliminate any biased approach. Additionally, before listing an article for deletion, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. Please review WP:BEFORE Thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.4.3 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi Marvellous Spider-Man Thanks for inquiring about (A recent winner of championship, a model, a bodybuilder who is not in the news.) Their is a possibility that you haven't read this article from last month about this bodybuilder. http://www.incirlik.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/907297/incirlik-to-hold-inaugural-fitness-competition The article clearly demonstrates that this public figure is noted in the article as a "professional natural bodybuilder, athlete and competitor." The article also demonstrates that the bodybuilder is actively involved in the community, building international foreign relations and being summoned to put on the first-ever fitness competition at a location in Turkey. I would have to disagree that the bodybuilder isn't in the news. The bodybuilder appears very active in the media, while supported by credible sources. However, please help us strengthen the article with more recommendations. Recommend moving article to WP:AFI Thank you for your inquiry. Rniterjr (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator's definition of a reliable source seems contrary to what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. Recommend nominator review WP:SOURCE under "What counts as a reliable source." Wikipedia doesn't define a Google search under "NEWS" tab as a sole reliable source. The nominator was swift to demonstrate that a Google search for "Robert Niter" did not list one reliable source regarding the bodybuilder. However, the Wikipedia article for Robert Niter clearly states that the bodybuilder is known as "Rob Niter." Upon performing a Google search for "Rob Niter" (under the condition of the nominator), and clicking the "NEWS" tab; it is revealed that the bodybuilder is featured in an "independent" and secondary article in a well-known and reliably sourced newspaper: Periodico Zocalo This is contrary to the nominator's statement that "He is nowhere mentioned in any reliable newspaper." I would highly encourage the nominator to review the Wikipedia article and its entirety prior to nominating for WP:AFD. Recommend speedy keep per GeoffreyT2000

Request nominator review WP:STFWRniterjr (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia recommends Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

"The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rniterjr (talk 16:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Rniterjr (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google News Search for "Rob Niter" reveals these articles. Google High Beam Search for "Robert Niter" reveals his championship awards and heroic act in saving a life here The bodybuilder is clearly in the news.Rniterjr (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this suggests any convincing of applicable notability, the article itself goes to specifics about things he would say about himself and his career; the fact how it's actually formatted in this exact situation shows the concerns; there's nothing to suggest improvements would be meaningful. Regardless of what the Keep votes consider about this or the AfD is not something to consider if the article itself is still of concern and if it's not actually improvable. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In evaluating the comments, I have responded to each wikipedian's claim with strong evidence in supporting this bodybuilder's article. I've used good faith to remove parts of the article that others have written that gave the appearance of "promoting" the bodybuilder and inaccurate data. What I haven't received is the "why" factor. Why does this bodybuilder not meet WP:GNG. In my review, I hear "concern" but that doesn't tell me that this bodybuilder isn't notable. I hear that one is not "convinced" but nothing to follow as to why. Example, one member wrote that their was no news sources in which it was later provided. I hear things regarding "specifics." The specifics of any article in Wikipedia should be VERY SPECIFIC and include sources as to challenge anyone in question. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I still stand by this bodybuilder as being notable based on WP:GNG He meets the bar. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Rniterjr (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's pretty simple. The subject meets the requirements for notability. CuriousMum (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the previous Afd nominator. It's pretty simple. The subject doesn't meet the requirements for notability. Non-notable competition, no significant press, especially in any bodybuilder magazine. Note: Rniterjr is the article's creator. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable body builder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep previous Afd nominator claims "non-notable competition" yet Musclemania has it's own Wikipedia article. According to Musclemania's Official Website, competitions are held globally, to include multiple locations in America, Asia, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Paris, Hidalgo, India and Europe. I'd agree with Wikipedia that Musclemania is a notable competition. Although thousands compete, the bodybuilder's image and name was chosen to grace the front cover of the Texas Tour of Musclemania's Official Website. I could only assume that his competition standing was a determining factor. This bodybuilder, author, and writer is also verified as a public figure, media company or brand. After careful consideration, I'd still have to say the bodybuilder easily passes WP:GNG. Rniterjr (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The athlete has media exposure from reliable sources. He has won a competition multiple times. The competition is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. He is sponsored by a company notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. The athlete meets notability standards on many levels. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG, article subject has received extensive media coverage with reliable sources. Multiple competitions winner. BabbaQ (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. there are enough citations to reliable sources including news sources. pretty IittIe Iiar 10:11, 17 October 2016 (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.