Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Chalmers

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. Per WP:ATA, the mere existence of reliable sources in support of notability is enough; being in a poor condition is not a reason for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chalmers

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, sponsorships do not equal notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but Chalmers is a professional sportsman who has competed at the highest level. He's a big enough name in skateboarding to have featured as a playable character in an Electronic Arts video game - Skate.[1] Also featured in Tony Hawk in Boom Boom Sabotage.[2] Plenty of coverage in skate magazines/sites: Thrasher, Skateboarder magazine, Transworld Skateboarding, ESPN (calling him an ambassador for Canadian skateboarding]), Transworld Skateboarding. There's plenty more around confirming his participation in major skateboarding competitions. I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. He clearly passes the relevant notability guideline, having competed professionally, getting reviews and interviews, and having an impact on popular culture, as may be seen from the video game characters noted above. Athletes do not become less notable just because they sing north of the 49th parallel. The external links and sources noted by Michig can be used as good references. Again, the topic comes up, "Is an interview sufficient for a reliable source?" The growing consensus here has been to answer in the affirmative, at least for celebrities such as professional athletes, actors, artists, and musicians. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's references. Nom's claim of WP:ATHLETE is shown to be false. Vodello (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you!?! The article has not been improved with any of Michig's wonderful references, it's still in the same crap shape it was when I found it. From reading the article, there is no way to tell that the subject is notable as it now stands. Bad faith wording on your part, based on the continuing poor shape of the article.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The available sources show that the subject is notable and the article can be improved. How is pointing out that the subject passes WP:ATHLETE bad faith on Vodello's part?--Michig (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are included, but none of the source material is. The text should reflect the actual notability, and it still reads as it did the day I nom'd it. The text should include the notability, and then link to the relevant websites, not make the reader go hunting first. That's our calling. As per Vodello's bad faith, my nom may (I still think notability is a tenuous stretch, but...) be "outdated" in light of proper source material, but the article itself still does not reflect that my nom was "false". "False" is a loaded word and casts aspersions on the nom, me.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reading something into the comments that isn't there. Given that you see the sources I found as "wonderful references", do you agree that the subject is sufficiently notable?--Michig (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, no, elsewise I would withdraw the nom and call it a night. "Wonderful" is what those in the industry call "sarcasm".--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added the sources you found here, but you haven't added them to the article. Now, take the reliable, independent, third-party published source and actually cite' it in the article. This forum, where articles are sought to be deleted, is not the right place to make the article better.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't order other editors around, particularly if you're not prepared to do this work yourself. The issue being discussed here is the suitability of the subject for inclusion, not the quality of the article.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up. Vodello (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unwikified and unfootnoted BLP. Fix it or kill it. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy keep. A waste of everyone's time. Will someone pls put this AfD out of its misery by closing it? Advise nom to follow wp:before in the future, prior to making any additional AfD nominations. Also, nom seems to lack an understanding of the purpose of AfD. If the relevant sources exist (which nom is required to check), then nom should never AfD the article in the first place. This is not a vehicle to article improvement. And no editor has to add the RS refs -- all that is required to Keep the article is that the refs exist (added to the article, or not).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (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.