Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Reading through all of these varied opinions, I'm going to close this discussion with a simple Delete, no Salt. If this article gets recreated again in main space, please tag it for CSD G4. Ideally, any supporters of this article will read this AFD closure and work on a new article in Draft space, submitting it for AFC review.

However, if my decision today leads to a 4th AFD within a year with a similar outcome, I'd then suggest Salting the main space page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dufek

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Joshua Dufek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of article deleted via two different AfD discussions. Propose deletion and creation protection. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Motorsport, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: with such a young subject (17 years old) it's not surprising that coverage would increase, so re-creation five months after deletion is not a terrible thing. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you're worried about the recreation of an article, nominate it for speedy deletion upon reviewal, don't create a whole new AfD without even verifying whether coverage/notability has increased over these 7 months. Per WP:DEL-REASON and WP:SK#1, unless you propose a valid rationale, this a very straightforward speedy keep vote. MSport1005 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My rationale echoes that of HumanBodyPiloter5's from the previous nomination. The subject has not received enough additional significant coverage in independent sources to satisfy the GNG. Everything appears to be either ROUTINE or non-independent (such as an interview) save for La Côte, which is behind a paywall and still only a single source. Don't assume I haven't done a WP:BEFORE check. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's this, and this, and this, and this? Most is WP:ROUTINE but if you search deep enough, independent coverage exists. This (which comes from a quick search, so even more can emerge) combined with all the La Côte coverage, which is very good, takes it towards WP:GNG. WP:POTENTIAL is also high, as his age and rookie win at Zandvoort last weekend (later lost due to a penalty) shows, so salting is unwarranted. This is a keep, or at worst a draftify !vote. Still stand by my speedy keep vote though—this is a very poor nomination and you seem to be trying to scrape up a rationale on the spot. MSport1005 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was moved to mainspace with a very clear rationale: "Dufek has now completed races in FRECA". Now, I don't know whether that implies notability, but it does suggest that the previoud AfD arguments might be inappropriate, that a speedy delete would be very unfair, and that as it stands there is no valid rationale for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Random teenager competing in low-level competitions. NRTV is a couple of sentences of extremely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Simandan is an interview on a blog that probably is not a reliable source and may not be independent of the subject. This Formula Scout article (noting that Formula Scout are a reliable source) contributes more towards WP:SIGCOV than their coverage of drivers usually does, but my personal view is that our definition of WP:SIGCOV and WP:ONEEVENT needs to be particularly extensive when dealing with WP:MINORS, so this alone doesn't sway my opinion. If multiple other profiles from reliable independent sources were to show up similar to this Formula Scout article I might change my vote, but right now this article only seems to demonstrate the notability of the events Dufek has competed in. Swiss Motorsport.com gives us a couple of paragraphs of routine reporting on where local drivers finished in a minor-league motor race and cannot be considered WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. As always, I have nothing against these kids. I just feel it's fundamentally unethical to have articles about children who aren't demonstrably public figures known to a fairly wide audience, given the potential for vandalism and other issues to occur that may not be picked up on by good-faith editors before they can cause some sort of harm. More broadly I have concerns about the number of WP:BLPs of sportspeople who haven't established themselves as having success at a fairly high level, as often these articles get forgotten about over the years and can become targets for vandalism, like that article about a BTCC backmarker which spent several years with a verifiably false claim in the first sentence from a while back. Edit: I do agree that it is fairly plausible that this article's subject may become notable at some point in the next few years, but without getting into WP:CRYSTAL it's impossible to say what might happen beyond the current situation. If this article's subject wins the FRECA title then that would change the situation significantly. On those grounds I would support WP:SALTing until October January 2023 and no later. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5. If Formula Scout is a reliable source then we have WP:GNG right there.[1][2][3] StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Three Formula Scout articles do not prove the subject meets the GNG. The coverage here still essentially amounts to WP:ROUTINE announcements as well. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely "organization" in that sentence means "collective or corporate author" and not "publisher" or "news agency"? -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest the most appropriate interpretation is "outlet" or "masthead". Multiple different outlets owned by the same publisher or agency would be different organizations, but the same individual outlet (in this case Formula Scout) would be one organization. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Salt as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per my original deletion nomination, the second deletion discussion, and HumanBodyPiloter5's analysis of the sources provided (except I disagree that Formula Scout is an indicator of notability, as I've argued before). Dufek continues to fail notability guidelines for the time being, and it doesn't look like his chances of moving up the ladder are that big at the moment. Creation protection until January might be appropriate but I don't have a strong opinion on that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Dufek's results I would agree that WP:SALTing until January would actually be appropriate. If Dufek does turn around the season and wins every remaining race and gets coverage in the process then it can be requested that the protection be removed, but otherwise it is unlikely that this article's subject will meet the notability requirements for a WP:BLP by the end of this year. Beyond that it becomes a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's very hard to predict where one of these junior sportspeople might be competing in twelve months time. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and oppose salting - Reformulating my vote. Comes close to WP:SIGCOV with the sources I've provided above but it's not clear-cut, and fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Borderline notable at best. Oppose salting because WP:POTENTIAL is high, as explained above. Incubating in draftspace until a bit more coverage emerges is the best approach in my view. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will look into this when I'm more free, but DRYT.Motorsport needs to stop moving drivers from draftspace under the reasoning of FRECA participation. "since Dufek has now completed races in FRECA, he is a relevant driver and is worthy of a page" is a pretty poor rationale, that's not based on the actual guidelines at WP:NMOTORSPORT. The only current F1 feeder series (rightfully) giving notability is Formula 2 Championship. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, weakly oppose draftfying with no particular opinion on salting. While I've voted delete in all three previous discussions, it does appear that the sourcing available is better than the last times (not that cluttering this discussion with routine coverage or blog posts helps!) but I still don't see a pass of GNG. Again like the last time there is a huge number of sources in the article itself but these are mostly non-neutral or non-reliable. I'm opposed to draftifying this version as I believe it is possibly lacking correct attribution from the previous versions (especially given the presence of some of the same fairly obscure unreliable sources like the youtube video) but also if deleted (which will reflect consensus on lack of notability), due to the presence of these unreliable sources it might be better to start again if/when substantial coverage in reliable sources becomes available rather than continuing with this version. A7V2 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not salt Fails WP:GNG with lack of WP:SIGCOV on this athlete who is currently limited to regional competitions. As a young "up-and-comer," his notability can quickly change. Frank Anchor 20:11, 12 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Dufek_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1098223336"