Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Chol (weightlifter)

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. The majority of opinions either say we can write an encyclopedia-quality article about Yun Chol, or that the nominator seems to be challenging existing policy, which is the wrong venue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Chol (weightlifter)

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

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

A losing competitor at one olympic games. Sole source is a results page. This clearly violates WP:NOTDIR, and also WP:BLP1E. Guy (help!) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY. A WP:POINTy nom following this discussion at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, See WP:NOTDIR. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia are coverage in reliable independent sources not membership of a category. Guy (help!) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The individual also won a silver medal at the Asian Games, so your claim of WP:BLP1E is erroneous. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the time period (pre-internet) and country of question, I think it likely that there are offline sources available that demonstrate GNG that we simply don't have access to due to geopolitical issues. Then again, would we consider any North Korean sources to be reliable? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum I'd want an understanding of the Korean language sources are (or aren't) in this case as it's possible there are good sources from South Korea. As I don't know enough to know what his name is in Korean I can't even begin to search such sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only news source in North Korea, period, is KCNA, which has reliability in some cases that is highly dubious. In other cases, there is simply not enough information to know whether its coverage is accurate. That being said, what it does report on sports is generally reliable, although it rarely reports on failures by the North Koreans. This means that while the information in the sports articles is generally accurate, key information may have been left out. That being said, given we'd consider reporting on an athlete in national media to establish GNG in any other case, and the rather unusual circumstances here, I'd consider it sufficient. Otherwise it would create different notability standards for North Korean athletes than those from every other country, which probably violates WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, and a whole bunch of other policies and guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if significant coverage can be found. As the article stands, the sources are only database or list entries without significant coverage. There may be more coverage out there (either offline or online but in non-English media), which is why we have these SNGs in the first place. That said, since the subject is a) from North Korea and b) lost the event, I consider it reasonable to assume that finding those sources will be impractically difficult. creffett (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This is the very reason why we have SNGs. This isn't a great article, but we can't actually determine his notability without access to Korean-language sources. I know other users take this to mean "we have to keep the crap," but that's not my point at all - there's simply nobody here who can definitively say if this person is notable or not, and as a content creator that means we need to err on the side of keep as he does pass WP:V. If someone does a before search in Korean and nothing comes up, and unfortunately a web search may not suffice, will be happy to change my !vote to a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't be ridiculous. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculously POINT-y nomination, easily passes WP:OLY. Totally inappropriate and should have been speedily closed. Smartyllama (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject specific guidelines should not trump common sense. Not everyone who has ever entered into the olympics is notable by any real logical standard. This subject notability guidelines is absurd and needs to be scrapped in favor of something that better reflects what articles will actually come to have sources enough to justify their existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's absurd is !voting delete on every sports AfD regardless of merit, as you have. I encourage the closing admin to keep that in mind when determining how much weight to give your !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's focus on the article topic and whether it's notable or not, and avoid accusing others of !voting delete too much, etc. Thank you. Levivich 21:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per JPL, and per the-philosophical-opposite-of-SF's-position. I agree that there's simply nobody here who can definitively say if this person is notable or not but I disagree that as a content creator that means we need to err on the side of keep as he does pass WP:V. We should err on the side of exclusion because he does not pass V, unless you count sourced-to-a-statistical-table as passing V. I don't, because in order for something to be verified, it needs to be verified by multiple independent secondary sources. If we only verify something to a primary source, we're relying on WP:OR. For example, it's original research to say "all Olympians are notable". I'd say {{cn}} for that statement. And non-independent sources are not reliable sources for notability determinations. This article subject isn't notable until and unless multiple secondary independent sources say he is. No sources, no article. Levivich 21:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you're refusing to do WP:BEFORE and then saying it should be deleted because you can't be bothered to do so? Also, Sports-Reference has been determined multiple times to be reliable and satisfy WP:V, so setting aside the GNG/SNG issues, it obviously satisfies at least V. So that's complete garbage what you're saying and your repeated and absurd arguments against Sports Reference for some unknown reason make me seriously question whether you're here to build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons mentioned above for keeping. Jeff in CA (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be a procedural keep as a WP:POINTy nom that would be better handled as a general discussion of notability guidelines (as he clearly meets the SNG) but as an athlete about which we have multiple sources about multiple noteworthy performances this isn't even a good test case; he clearly meets the SNG and appears to meet the GNG, even despite the difficulty of accessing North Korean sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(actual question, not trying to be hostile here) David Eppstein, what do you see as multiple sources about multiple noteworthy performances? I see two sources on the article, but my understanding is that the NSPORT rule is that presence in a sports stat database (which is what's in the article right now) isn't sufficient to establish notability. If you know of other sources that will bring the article to meeting GNG, I'm willing to change my !vote. creffett (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to argue that Chol does not pass WP:NSPORT? Because in that case WP:NOLY does not say anything about which sources are usable. On the other hand, if you're trying to argue based on WP:GNG or WP:BIO1E, ignoring sport, then we have two significant accomplishments each of which is reliably sourced, and one of which has a nontrivial amount of detail about Chol (half a dozen intermediate scores as well as final result). Additionally, I strongly suspect that there are many early-1990s North Korean print sources about Chol. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm arguing that I don't think Yun (I think Yun is his surname, at least) is notable because he doesn't meet GNG. Here's my logic (apologies, wall of text incoming):
  - Throughout NSPORT, the term "presumed notable" comes up. I'm treating that as a rebuttable presumption.
    This interpretation is backed by answer 1 from the NSPORT FAQ: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. (emphasis mine)
  - From that, NOLY means "someone who competed in the Olympics is likely to have significant coverage. Okay so far.
  - A reasonably thorough search has not found any additional sources. The existing sources do not meet WP:SPORTBASIC: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.. Reference 1 is, in fact, Sports Reference, and is exactly what this part of the guideline is talking about - a list of statistics without any deeper coverage. Reference 2 similarly is a list of medal awards without deeper coverage. Neither of those meets GNG.
  - I agree that there are probably North Korean sources out there, but we haven't found them, and might never find them.
    The deeper question here is "how much effort is an AfD nominator expected to put into a BEFORE search?"
  - If someone can find those North Korean sources, I have no problem keeping the article. However, the article does not currently show it meets GNG, and I'm on the deletionist side here - if we can't find those sources with a reasonable amount of effort, then the article should be deleted. I don't think an article should be kept because there might be sources somewhere we can't get to.
  creffett (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that searches performed so far have been "reasonably thorough", because there is no evidence that we have searched even the Korean-language sources from South Korea let alone any print-only North Korean sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a "reasonably thorough" search included print-only North Korean sources, what else would one search in an "exhaustive" search? I can't wrap my mind around keeping this stub because there might be some print-only North Korean sources out there. Levivich 03:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY Lightburst (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and castigate nominator per above. ―cobaltcigs 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear case of WP:NOLY, having competed in the Olympics. Possibly a case of not completing WP:BEFORE Taewangkorea (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at the Olympics, so passes the subject specific guideline for this. See WP:NOLY which some are trying to change now just to eliminate articles for a lot of Olympic contestants. Dream Focus 18:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Screw NOLY. This is spam. Your quantity is not quality. Statistical database entries is not notability. Get some WP:SIGCOV or this is just WP:BLP1E. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1E? He competed at the Olympics and won a medal at the Asian Games. That's two events. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. You have to get consensus for changing NOLY before asking for deletion. --T*U (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOLY. The Olympic Games are the pinnacle event in most sports that are held there, including weightlifting; thus, the competitors belong to the world's best athletes in their field. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's 90 kg. The deletion rationale is actually reasonable. I hate all of these "Keep per NOLY" arguments. It is a terrible precedent that has been set at AfD. If it can't meet the GNG it shouldn't be an article; this applies to all sportsperson articles. NOLY and other things at the sports SNG don't create notability. I believe that sources probably exist, but are not searchable in English on the internet. How good they are is another thing entirely. While geopolitical issues interfere with being able to do a WP:BEFORE search properly, I don't believe that we should have BLP articles for subjects that can't be sourced reliably. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What source in the article do you think is unreliable? It's one thing to suggest that it's not enough to establish notability, but to suggest that Sports Reference is unreliable is ridiculous and you know it. Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entries in reference dictionaries typically aren't enough to demonstrate notability, even if they are technically reliable. They're good for WP:V, not so much for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, What SportingFlyer said. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just relax, leave things as they are and rest assured that nearly all stubs will eventually be improved in the grand scheme of things? Enjoy life instead of wringing hands about stubs. Stubs are not a big deal. Focus on instances of non-notability in which there is near unanimity. It seems a colossal waste of time to debate this incessantly. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff in CA, Um... no. No new sources are going to show up for this guy. If they aren't available now, they likely won't ever be, and unless they do, we can't expand this stub as there is literally nothing more to say. If sources do become available on the other hand, then we can actually write a decent biography about the subject and it can be created easily. Until that time, we can't, and this permastub is useless. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just don’t worry about it.Jeff in CA (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect to Weightlifting at the 1990 Asian Games? He won a medal there. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because people keep insisting WP:BLP1E even though that's been repeatedly disproven. Smartyllama (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athlete clearly competed at a notable level of the sport as a silver medallist at the Asian Games and Olympic finalist. Almost certainly a multiple national champion too given he was selected for those competitions. SFB 01:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have access to various subscription databases. These contain references that might not be generally available that indicate notability. For example, BBC Monitoring reported "Pyongyang, October 11: The title of DPRK (North Korea) Labour Hero with gold medal (hammer and sickle) and the Order of the National Flag First Class were awarded to gold medalists at the 30th Olympics. They were [among others] weightlifter Om Yun Chol of the Amnokgang Sports Team..." The inference is that he is sufficiently notable at least within North Korea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great find, but Om Yun-chol is a different person (and gold medalist). SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. Thanks. Striking my !vote accordingly. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as argued above. If there's a sensible redirect target and we don't have sources to write an article beyond a sub-stub/statistics, it should be redirected regardless of notability. That said, if NOLY doesn't correspond to having those sources the vast majority of the time, it should be changed. The hardest thing here is the issue of systemic bias. Since this AfD seems intended to be (or, at least, destined to be) something of a case study in NOLY, I do wish we had started with an Olympian from a primarily English-speaking country. At the end of the day, though, regardless of whether we decide that someone is technically notable under this or that guideline, we need to have sources (whether in the article or not -- but more than their probability of existence) in order to have an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Olympic athlete. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the highly unlikely event this is not kept, I would strongly oppose a redirect as there are multiple notable events he competed in, like others have noted and some insist on denying. Smartyllama (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is crappy enough to even ignore the Korean name of this person. When searching YUN Chol (PRK) as 윤철, this only leads to 엄윤철(1991), i.e. to someone else. Moreover being only #12 at Barcelona 1992 is not "multiple notable events", this is ONLY ONE not so notable event. By the way, [1]. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're denying the Asian Games exist? Smartyllama (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it isn't hard to find other sources for the results if we have to - see [2]. But the fact that a source is (or will be) dead is irrelevant to notability. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the Olympics and Asian Games, he competed at the 1990 World Weightlifting Championships (see [3]) so we now have three major events he competed in, and one he medaled in. I don't know how people can seriously argue 1E applies. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. It reiterates the pointy nomination, the lack of effort in searching by the nom, which they've been strangely quiet on. Maybe a bit of WP:CIR too, but I'd have to look at any other AfD contributions before making that call. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for heaven's sakes. Per plenty of previous arguments, including that he meets the Olympic competitor standard. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability standards both as an Olympic finalist and as a medalist in the Asian Games. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedural keep. It appears the nominator wants to challenge WP:NOLY. The correct avenue for that is WP:RfC; AfD is the wrong way to change the long-standing convention that Olympic participation results in inherent notability. Schwede 66 21:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that from? "Inherent notability"?? Levivich 22:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect or merge as appropriate. The guideline WP:NOLY, like other topic-specific notability guidelines, only creates a rebuttable presumption of notability. This presumption can be rebutted if, as here, a thorough discussion does not find any indication of coverage that goes beyond statistical information about match participation. Such information does not amount to a biography in any meaningful sense (see also WP:NOTSTATS). It should therefore be covered in an appropriate list rather than in a separate article. Sandstein 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a higher bar for rebutting this presumption than simply basing it on a discussion.Jeff in CA (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2020 (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.