Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill May

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill May

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I regret creating this BLP. The subject is marginally notable. One of the sources is not reliable. Wikipedia does not currently have an effective system for managing BLPs such as this one. I therefore urge deletion. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article you created deleted, then place a {{db-author}} on top of the article, which tags the article for speedy deletion (G6). AFD is not necessary here. MuZemike 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 actually. --76.65.140.230 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, as Cla68 is now blocked. Grsz¹¹ 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And declined. I don't mind of course. Grsz¹¹ 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the page a bit now (after this request was made), so Cla68 is no longer the sole contributor. This guy easily passes WP:ATHLETE; I can't see why he is seen as "marginally notable" with several bits of coverage and a championship at what's apparently the highest level that a male synchronised swimmer can go. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I guess if you put it that way...you're right, there aren't many venues for a male synch swimmer. If he had attempted to swim at Olympics, Pan Ams, Goodwills, and denied at all of them, but swam at some YMCA competition somewhere, I'd guess he'd be notable then too. Grsz¹¹ 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a national championship is hardly a YMCA competition. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the highest amateur competition. This is an odd case, but you made an effective argument. Keep. Grsz¹¹ 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see what you mean now. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, this person seems to pass current notability standards, marginally. Absent any information about the subject's wishes (which would sway my view to delete if that's what the subject wanted, under "default to delete" and "subject's wishes" policies) this is probably a keep. I'd suggest merging it instead of actually keeping it, and making it a footnote in the Synchronized swimming article instead. This is a poster child for "liberal semi-protection" and for flagged revisions, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say 'regrettably', Lar? Is there something wrong with having an article on him? And what exactly is the "subject's wishes" policy you're talking about? Obviously we have plenty of articles on people who'd rather we didn't, and I don't see anything here that violates BLP, so could you explain what you mean? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per preceding. Fulfils notability criteria. I agree with semiprotection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I see no reason for semiprotection either, but that is not for AfD is for anyway. Possibly flagged protection when it comes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant coverage in multiple sources, and as Nyttend interestingly points out he's reached the highest level he can. (I hadn't even realised synchronised swimming was a sexually-restricted sport. How sad.) Olaf Davis (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Semi-protection was a bad choice here, but I see no reason to delete, as the subject is apparently notable. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Object to deletion of marginally notable people in general, and this individual isn't even marginally notable so that's not an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he won a national championship in a sport, and there's nothing more to say about it. In any case, marginally notable=notable. DGG (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (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.