Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svatopluk Svoboda

Svatopluk Svoboda (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)

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1911 Turin gymnastic tournament (which was not a world tournament, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the Czech Sokol team (who were not "Czechoslovakia" per se). However, Svoboda does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Svoboda received individual "medals" at the 1911 tournament. However, there were no individual awards at the 1911 gymnastics tournament - these weren't awarded until much later. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual mirrors. There's a prominent author and astrologer with the same name, as well as a Czech plastic surgeon. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Because 1) The games at which Svoboda competed for which he is, as the article currently stands, credited as being a triple-medalist are, nevertheless, retroactively recognized by the FIG as a World Championships. In their 125-year anniversary publication, he is listed as being a gold medalist for his CzechoSlovakian team, and the bronze medalist in both the All-Around and Horizontal bar.^[1] AND 2) As to whether or not individual medals were awarded at those championships, which is really a side-point, I can only say that, to my knowledge, the FIG has not been completely clear on that issue and the Gymnastics-History.com website seems to be in error because, as far as Svoboda’s 1911 'Worlds' teammate, Ferdinand Steiner, who is recognized as having been the All-Around Champion at those games, is concerned, I do know of a data source, which is a brief biographical treatment of Steiner, that very convincingly depicts individual medals having been won at those games.^[2] Specifically, the image for that bio treatment shows, in the upper-right-hand corner, both a gold and bronze medal awarded at “Concorso Ginnastico Internazionale 1911 Torino”,^[3] which seems undeniable as they are medals that show the year, the locale, and the sport, and since his Gold was a team gold, the bronze shown in that photo is almost assuredly Steiner's Parallel Bars bronze, unless an extremely problematic skeptic wanted to say that the Gymnazium or some associate of theirs took this bronze from an individual from the Italian team, which I highly doubt is the case. Hence, pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt, individual medals were awarded at these international championships. The provenance for this seems beyond reproach.

QuakerIlK (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The pictures of gold and bronze in the corner of a school magazine article about famous graduates are not demonstrative of anything, and certainly aren’t described as individual medals - likely these are just copied and pasted from anywhere.

It literally says that individual scores weren’t awarded until 1922 in FIG’s 100th anniversary book on page 76:

"There was only one team score, established on the total of the points obtained by all members of the team. (Individual scores were only introduced in 1922, first for all-round, then for apparatus. The finals exist only since 1958.)"

As Gymnastics History also points out, quoting Olympische Turnkunst of August 1967, even in 1922 only all-round rankings were awarded, not apparatus ones. They also quote Leon Štukelj's autobiography in which he says that even in 1922, only a gold medal was awarded for all-round, "and no other" (i.e., no silver or bronze individual medals, nor any apparatus medals, even in 1922).

So either 1) a school magazine has got it wrong or 2) FIG's 100th Anniversary history, Gymnastics History, Olympische Turnkunst, and Leon Štukelj were all wrong.

Scores recognised retrospectively years later - particularly awarded en masse in a retrospective history - simply aren’t an indicator of notability, since the coverage that normally attends the awarding of a medal just won’t have happened. In any event, all sportsbio articles have to have at least one instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source per WP:NSPORT2022, and none is present here. FOARP (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"likely these are just copied and pasted from anywhere."

Prove it. That burden is on you. And try offering a rationale as to why the Gymnasium would have even bothered offering photographic representation of the bronze medal, as such should be less relevant and prestigious than the bronze. Also, whereas the bronze medal is concerned, it has a loop at the top of it, suggesting it to be worn as a medallion and affixed to a ribbon or some other such object, whereas the gold medal has no such loop at the top of it. That is yet one more verisimilitude suggesting the veracity of all of this material.

The fact that such finely reproduced photographic representation of these medals even exists, as well as the provenance and composition of them, does serve to undermine the claims of Stukelj and the FIG that individual medals weren't rewarded, at least at these games in 1911. Written record, especially well after the fact (the FIG and German publications were written OVER HALF A CENTURY AFTER THE FACT, and Stukelj"s competitive record is from after WWI, not before it, whereas Steiner's medals were from a decade and a memory-disrupting major war earlier) ought to be superceded, or at least brought into question, by photographic proof. This is the equivalent of an archaeological expedition finding an artefact that brings into question the previously recollected history. Also, I am familiar enough with that FIG 100 year publication to show at least one obvious inconsistency/error, as well as glaring omissions in it, so if you persist in your call for this deletion of this article, I will be forced to undermine yet more of your assumptions and dismissiveness and show, as a matter of fact, the negligence and inconsistencies with the FIG's own chronicle-keeping.

2601:6C1:686:C3C0:917D:64BF:23AC:AFBA (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I don't know. Something somehow just makes me think that FIG, Gymnastics History, Olymische Turnkunst, and Leon Štukelj know what was awarded better than some Czech school bigging up their alumni in a random in-house publication with some copy-pasted photos, but you do you. I mean the journalists from La Stampa who covered the event must have just forgotten to mention there being any individual medals as well. FOARP (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meeting NGYMNAST (though I can't say I'm convinced by the above screeds) is irrelevant when the required IRS SIGCOV sourcing has not been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) First, FOARP, let’s deal with omissions. The FIG names some of the stars of the men’s competition at their various World Championships in this 100 year anniversary treatment, such as Alois Hudec and Veikko Huhtanen at the 1931 World Championships (the ones immediately preceding the 1934 Worlds)^[1]: 84 and the last names of gymnasts Aaltonen, Huhtanen, Adatte, Eugster, Stalder, and Gebendinger, as well as several others, at the 1950 World Championships (the ones immediately succeeding the 1938 Worlds).^[1]: 86 Yet, in-between the two accounts of those respective World Championships in 1931 and 1950, despite the FIG actually detailing the fact that the 1934 Worlds was the first with an official women’s competition, they made no mention of any results, whatsoever, much less naming Vlasta Děkanová as the All-Around Champion at those games or the next ones in 1938^{[1]: 85–86} (which, in fact, she was, according to NUMEROUS sources which you can find in her Wikipedia bio), as well as the FIG’s 110 year ^[2] and 125 year^[3] anniversary publications. This is a glaring omission.

2) Now, let’s deal with an inconsistency in the 100 year publication. On page 30, a narrative by honorary FIG official Miroslav Klinger on the various dates of creation of national gymnastics societies in chronological order in Europe is inserted. He states "The Deutsche Turnschaft was created in 1860 in Germany, the Belgian gymnasts established the Belgian Gymnastics Federation (later Royal) in 1865…"^[1]: 30 and later in that same paragraph "The "Ceska (later the Ceskoslovenska) Obec Sokolska was established in 1889 in Bohemia.""^[1]: 30 Yet, later on in the same paragraph, Klinger writes "Following the creation of Sokols in Bohemia, the southern Slavs started to practice gymnastics: The Slavones since 1863, the Croates since 1874, the Serbes since 1882."^[1]: 30 This is an inconsistency! How could the Slavones, Croates, and Serbes in, respectively, 1863, 1874, and 1882, have FOLLOWED the creation of Sokols in Bohemia if the Sokols in Bohemia weren’t established until 1889? Again, this is an inconsistency! And if you knew as much about the subject as I do, you would know that the Bohemian/Austro-Hungarian/CzechoSlovakian Sokol Slets began in 1882 (with, of course, the organization predating the events by having been established as far back as the 1860s), and this is well-documented. So, you can either persist in selectively quoting parts of the FIG’s 100 year publication as final and authoritative in this manner, despite my having shown substantial errors and omissions in it, or you can, actually look at the MORE RECENT publications by the FIG that have provided more detailed information. More recent publications are considered more reliable than less recent ones when it comes to dealing with inconsistencies in information. This is taught in college. Even some high-schools teach their students this basic bit of research protocol.

3) As for the source that you describe as a mere "school magazine article", that is the official website of the Gymnázium Jiřího Wolkera [cs], which is a school that has existed for more than 125 years and is now, as of 2011, an affiliate school of the Palacký University Olomouc (which, itself, dates back to the 16th century and is the 2nd oldest in the Czech Republic). Therefore, the "school magazine article", as you call it, is, more properly, a "university affiliate official publication", not the mere classroom project of a group of adolescents. If you had demonstrated any curiosity and interest about the source, you could have saved yourself from accidentally summarily dismissing the source.

4) Now, to JoelleJay, I don’t know that there’s any specific rule on Wikipedia that says that you actually have to struggle with the content of the article being nominated for deletion in order to have the article deleted, however, you clearly aren’t. Also, as far as categorical criteria for various sports, they aren’t all the same. To begin with, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria states "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." However, Svoboda’s inclusion in a special anniversary publication of the official governing body of the sport in which he was a participant is far more selective, as their 125 year anniversary publication only lists individual medalists at the level of the Olympic Games and World Championships. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics states "Significant coverage is likely to exist for artistic gymnasts if they meet any of the criteria below: 1) Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (see below)" and then it goes on to name 5 various championships at which this could be the case: the Pan-American Games, the Asian Games, the Commonwealth Games, the European Championships and the Pacific Rim Championships. But Svoboda, in addition to being a multiple individual medalist at at World Championships was, additionally, an Olympian 9 years later.

5) Now, to both FOARP and JoelleJay As it is, the Gymnastics-History.com website does, itself, cite a source mentioning Svoboda at these games. In that Gymnastics-History.com article, Svoboda’s name comes up several times in a reference that they cite entitled "Sokol, 1911, Number 7".^[4] While it may be true that the Gymnastics-History.com website doesn’t link to said source, they do numerous other times. The bottom-line is that there does seem to be coverage of the event, there is evidence of individual medals being handed out at some of these championships prior to World War I (specifically, this 1911 one), and the official governing body of the sport has officially listed the subject multiple times as an individual World Championship medalist in their most recent recounting of the medalists of the sport at the level of the Olympics and World Championships. And lastly, FOARP, in light of all of the above, an elite sportsperson, World Champion, World Championships Individual Medalist, and Olympian, of the past whose documentability reaches at least the levels that it does here, deserves much better discussion in a deletion discussion (which I have given him) than "likely these are just copied and pasted from anywhere" and "Dude I don't know".QuakerIlK (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuakerIlK, NSPORT states All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. It also states Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. so any publication by the "official governing body of the sport" is clearly not an acceptable source for notability. Rather than wasting time trying to prove the subject meets a subcriterion that didn't exist at the time (and thus completely fails the whole reason the subcriterion exists, which is to predict a subject meeting it would have received sufficient coverage for GNG), find some sources that actually provide direct, independent, secondary SIGCOV.
Gymnastics-History.com is highlighted as an unreliable source by the bad refs plugin, not sure what that's about but it does seem to be SPS with no evidence of SME authorship so is by default not RS.
Also, the official website of a grammar school is not a "university affiliate official publication", that characterization is ludicrous. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) This doesn't demonstrate anything, 2) This also doesn't demonstrate anything, 3) Irrelevant, it is still just the in-house publication of a school. Plenty of schools have long histories - I went to one founded in 1614. None of this counters the basic point that no actual individual medals were awarded to Svoboda at the time and any individual scores awarded were given retrospectively years later. 4) WP:SIGCOV is still required regardless, and mentioning his name in a list is the epitome of the passing mention, 5) Sokol was the in-house publication of the Sokol organisation of which Svoboda was a member (i.e., not independent of the subject) and the coverage in the quotations provided is also just a passing mention.

BTW - there's no need to provide citations in a talk-page discussion, doing so just messes up the formatting of the page and means other editors need to stick in a template to avoid this. A link or source-name/page-number is sufficient. Also give this a read. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, as categorically dismissive as you have been as well as being as verbally flippant as you have been, I see no further reason to engage with you in this discussion. JoelleJay, since I copy-code, and couldn't remember, by sheer memory, the code for providing an Inter language Link, I copy-coded previous work that I did and forgot to completely and properly link to the proper school. This has now been corrected. It is not strictly a "grammar school", but a "Gymnazium" which is a kind of school different in European context than it or a mere grammar school would be in the USA or Canada. It is old and apparently prestigious and, YES, a university affiliate. If you would care to read up on it via the links I gave you, you would see how it should afford more respect than a mere grammar/elementary school. As for the Gymnastics-History.com website, FOARP was the one who introduced it to begin with, so at least whereas arguing with them is concerned, they opened the door. As far as what you,JoelleJay, say is concerned, you mentioned that it was highlighted by the refs plugin as an unreliable source, however you also stated that you don't know what that's about, so it doesn't sound like, in this deletion discussion, there is a good reason for excluding it as irrelevant or unreliable. If you actually familiarize yourself with the site, they often include photographic excerpts of the original source materials. As it is, I have demonstrated evidence as to the omissions, inconsistencies, and questionability of multiple relevant sources, yet I received nothing more than dismissiveness from either one of you, sometimes before even checking into the specifics of the source AT ALL. Also, JoelleJay, it's not particularly helpful to rattle off Wikispeak acronym terminology without citing the actual policy, then only selectively introducing cited policies when challenged, then reverting back to rattling off yet more Wikispeak acronym terminology without citing actual policy yet again.QuakerIlK (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually care whether this school is primary or secondary or a university, as none of that matters to the question of notability. I mention the gymnastics-history.com website only as a curiosity, it also is not particularly relevant to notability. The ONLY factor that counts at this point is whether an independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage exists to satisfy the requirement at NSPORT that All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. NGYMNAST presumptions do not apply unless that criterion is met, so we have to address that issue before delving into whether the subject actually meets NGYMNAST. I would suggest settling that at the talk page for NSPORT, asking specifically whether to add a clarification to the guidance that retroactive recognition by FIG counts for the subguideline. JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect per Clara A. Djalim below. As JoelleJay pointed out, we need sources that have significant coverage in independent reliable and secondary sources. There are some very long comments here, but no sources that meet the criteria for WP:GNG. It is the sources that matter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where he won a gold medal. Even if there was actually IR SIGCOV found, it's still not enough to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  His team won a gold medal. As he is mentioned there, I'll support a redirect Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The rationele of the nominator with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass is not true as person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist, so Keep. If someone has access to appropriate access to offline Czech sources without being able to find content, please let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if he meets NGYMNAST, All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This per WP:SPORTCRIT. You can't just say sources are likely to exist. We need to find them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a reason WP:NGYMNAST exists. You can't just claim, offline sources doesn't exist. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, somebody (although not a registered user) has written in for KEEP. This is refreshing, so I will rejoin the discussion. What I am having a hard time reconciling is the inconsistencies in the rationale for deleting this page, especially by FOARP. On the one hand, they argue that since the FIG 100 year publication states that individual medals weren't awarded during this era, that, taking this as a credible source, as he/she does, he/she uses that as a rationale for deletion, thereby, for the purposes of this discussion, he/she validates official FIG publications as reliable. By that logic, the FIG 110 and 125 year publications should also be considered reliable, actually even moreso, because they are more recent. Also, FOARP does the same for Gymnastics-History.com, rationalizing it as reliable in his/her rationale for deletion of this article. However, JoelleJay has said that this specific website is tagged as unreliable elsewhere in Wikipedia, however not showing any actual rationale. So, there seems to be some disagreement on here as to which sources are reliable or not. As for the 125-year FIG publication, there is an argument here that it is a database, however the listing of Medalists (the FIG's actual words, not "highest scorers", but "medalists") at the World/Olympic level is of a higher threshold than being merely a wide-sweeping database. It is not merely just any old database. It is a major 125th anniversary publication by the sport's official governing body. Additionally, since I am the person who is responsible for most of the content and results for the articles on the 1931 Worlds, 1934 Worlds, and 1938 Worlds, I can tell you all that the sources I used for those articles (contemporaneous primary sources such as Czech and Slovenian newspaper articles during the 1930s), except for one noted and redacted article, completely match the results given in the FIG 125 year publication for those years, thereby going a long ways in vouching for that publication's accuracy, (as I am sure Official Olympic Reports would). Check those articles and those sources and compare them to the FIG 125-year FIG publication for consistency - after all, that is one of your PRIME responsibilities as Wikipedia users and editors - to verify the accuracy of the sources. Additionally, there has been widespread deletion/draftification of other gymnasts bios from this early era with some of the same selective rationale as given earlier in this discussion. One question that should arise, then, is whether this particular instance and the other ones I mentioned, depending on the outcome of this deletion discussion, should give rise to a policy of deleting all similar bio articles/stubs for gymnasts, or any athletes, from a particular era of history just because of the online scarcity of those articles due to the age of them. That could literally result in the deletion of hundreds or even thousands of articles - just due to whimsical, selective rationales. Are we really going to, in practice, despite obvious exceptionalism in Wikipedia's policies, perpetuate prejudice against a whole time period due merely to selective policy adoption?QuakerIlK (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it might not help further establish notability, I did find a photograph of him where he is identified in a group lineup of him team who went to compete at an international competition in London. It is from a Czech newspaper/journal from June 25, 1910 that provides coverage of the event. I can upload it to the article. While I am not at all convinced that it should be necessary, it does add to the article via positive identification of the subject. Also, the photograph of him in that group photo shows a very convincing semblance to the photograph of him provided in olympedia.org.QuakerIlK (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know why you keep pushing this idea that individual medals were awarded at the time: they clearly weren't, as every source says they weren't, and no source describes them being awarded before 1922.

If you want to argue that scores given retrospectively decades later are the same thing in terms of notability, well, I think few people will agree with that. You only need to look at contemporary reports (e.g., 1 2) to see why: the 1911 tournament was a small team event on the sidelines of a larger festival so it was covered as such, and as a result the coverage that might otherwise have gone to individuals didn't happen. Subsequent histories have built on that base. For that reason significant coverage can't just be assumed to exist.

But you can disapprove all this easily if you can find even a single instance of significant coverage for the subject of this article, as is required anyway for all sports bio articles, by WP:NSPORTS2022. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, 1) I only now decided to look into your contributions and only just now discovered that you are an administrator. Who you are as a person and what your position is with Wikipedia should be irrelevant, as my discussion with you should be based on facts, not the history of your contributions. However, I have only within the last 15-30 minutes or so, upon my commencement of beginning to compose this reply, notice that you have recommended multiple articles on individual gymnasts for deletion. You have also, on every article page for the 1903 Worlds, 1905 Worlds, 1907 Worlds, 1909 Worlds, 1911 Worlds, 1913 Worlds, claimed that at every edition of these (retroactively recognized) World Artistic Gymnastics Championships prior to World War I that individual scores and/or medals were awarded only retroactively and that such individual awards and scores weren't awarded until 1922. You use only sources from the Gymnastics-History.com website to make this claim, however you never quote any such online articles. 2) Regardless of what some of those articles on Gymnastics-History.com might say in non-original-source-material text, you are issuing blank statements completely contradicting all of the data that has been on each of these Wikipedia articles for over 15 years, as well as all of the claims made by the FIG for nearly 20 years, as well as by other parts of that same Gymnastics-History.com website (from I will, later on in this response, quote specifics) and this is all at least somewhat referentially supported by other major sporting bodies such as USA Gymnastics. USA Gymnastics also refers to ALL of these games as World Championships and recognizes at least the Team and All-Around Champions at EACH of these games ([1]). Additionally, if you had spent much more time on the Gymnastics-History.com website upon which you seem to depend so heavily, you would see, as I previously alluded to, how in the article on the 1907 Worlds ([2]), original source materials are reproduced that thoroughly provide every score at the competition ([3]), and these original-source scores verify the rankings of the medalists at these games, such as Josef Čada’s 1st place score of 167.25, Jules Rolland’s 2nd place score of 158.75 and Karel Stary’s 3rd place score of 157.25, and this directly contradicts the claims you have made in many articles here on Wikipedia. ALL of these sources of information, as far as actual data is concerned, are completely consistent with each other – the FIG’s 125 year special anniversary publication, Gymnastics-History.com, long-standing information on Wikipedia, various previous older internet sources, and USA Gymnastics’ more basic information – all of these sources of information are completely in-alignment with each other, as far as the data (that exists) is concerned on all of these pre-WWI editions of the retroactively-recognized World Championships. 3) At this point, I can only personally advise you to become MUCH more familiar with the topic at hand and to consider that, despite your Administrator position on Wikipedia, you are contradicting every established and reputable source of information on this set of historical material that has stood here on Wikipedia for 15 years as well as in other places for longer. I, personally, would not dare to do what you have done in regards to this set of data for fear of rather punitive reprisal from numerous authorities in various sectors, including even Wikipedia where you are an Administrator.QuakerIlK (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuakerIlK , you are just shy of 2,200 2,800 words so far in this AfD. If there are sources out there, and you put the effort into finding them that you must have taken to write all that, I'm sure you would have found such sources by now. That is by far the best way to convince us that the subject is notable. Without any such sources, this page should not be kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is your only concern that these sources that you so desire haven't been found, or that they don't exist? As I should have demonstrated by now, and if you look at my user contributions as well as my user contributions on my previous account ("Miloluvr"), you can see that I have been interested in this material and working with it for some time. If you look at my Talk page, you will see that, yes, I have engaged in disagreements with other users about some of this material in the past. In my endeavours to better-document some of this material, I have looked for the most prominent journalistic publications for each of the host cities and gone to my nearest University (Florida Gulf Coast University) and consulted with one of their in-house reference librarians to see if their in-house database sources index any of those publications. Unfortunately, their not being a leading university, not even being one of the top handful of most prominent, largest, longest-standing, and resource-rich universities even within just the State University System of Florida, their in-house databases either didn't include those publications or didn't go back far enough (all of this material is before World War I). Somebody who lives in a much more major metro area with better access to resources that are probahbly only offered in-house at select institutions would probably be able to verify some of this. Should this article (and numerous others) be minimized and/or redirected and/or deleted because I am merely not one of those persons with those sorts of resources and that this and related articles merely aren't attracting the attention and interest of those who do and are? I would advise you to consider that just because these sources aren't easily available online right now doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that WP:NGYMNAST does repeatedly state that, due to the level and participant number of these games, coverage is likely to exist. There is at least enough in the way of sources for these articles to remain as stubs. I would also say that persistence in calls for deletion of this and some of the other related articles that FOARP has recommended for deletion and/or has revised with major revisionary/deletionist/minimizing claims based on selective evidence constitutes opportunistic deletionism and is a crime against information. As an administrator, FOARP should know better. QuakerIlK (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at my user contributions as well as my user contributions on my previous account ("Miloluvr") ... If you look at my Talk page ... You have written 3,200 words here now. I don't see how spending hours delving through your other contributions will help. 3,200 words and no sources. The WP:N policy requires sources, otherwise the page should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sources. 3 of them. As for the FIG and Gymnastics-History.con sources, FOARP opened the door on both of them - 1) the Gymnastics-History.com one, before this deletion discussion even began, by using it in the 1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, and 1913 Worlds articles, and 2) the FIG one at the onset of this deletion discussion. You can't use sources to build pages or to try to have them deleted/redirected, then discount somebody else using those same sources more thoroughly and with greater consideration than you, especially when the data from all other sources agrees with the sources in question. An administrator opened the door on this.. QuakerIlK (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuakerIlK, you know WP:N policy requires sources is referring to the sources required to satisfy WP:N, which obviously are not present: FIG fails independence as the governing sports body; Olympedia fails independence and is primary as an Olympics affiliate and database; and gymnastics-history.com, although an SPS, is actually quoting some contemporary, but still clearly primary, news (so that underlying source would be usable as RS, just not for notability as it is primary coverage). JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Gymnastics History cites good primary sources (albeit, not independent ones) and the essential cite is to those underlying sources. There is no such thing as "opening the door", however much it is bolded and underlined. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major 125th anniversary publication by the sport's official governing body. This is irrelevant both because it doesn't make the database listing not a database source, and also because per NSPORT Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@95.98.65.177, as explained below and elsewhere the NSPORT guideline states (emph mine) All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. The "criteria listed below" include NGYMNAST. We had a global consensus for this requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - People have been canvased in to this discussion by this non-neutral notice at the Gymnastics project. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it's my turn. As others have noted, FOARP AfD'ed many articles targeted all under the same rationale which directly affected WikiProject Gymnastics. In an effort to have a centralized discussion, QuakerIlK included not just potential !keep votes, but those who had voted for deletion on the other conversations as well. It does not appear anyone new has since joined this AfD as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The notification was decidedly non-neutral. WP:CANVAS also recommends notifying the pages being canvased to. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]