Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taichi Adachi

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Adachi

Taichi Adachi (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)

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Sources are not good enough with one link to Facebook. Not been able to find any secondary or reliable sources. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taichi Adachi won the all-around title at the 2020 Liukin Invitational Elite, which applies to WP:NGYMNAST criteria: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition. Also, JGA, Gymternet & FIG are all independent of Taichi Adachi himself, so sources there are independent sources. For secondary, take the example of the FIG link, as in a Secondary source, information is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format, and the FIG must have collected information from his documents in Japanese, such as birth certificate, high school profile...NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @NguyenDuyAnh1995 In the article, it states that Adachi is ‘currently considered one of the most promising competitors in Japan’, but the source that follows that goes to a Facebook page. Is there a more reliable source to support this claim? I haven’t been able to find any to back this claim myself, but do you have any (even if they are not in English) other sources that can back this claim as someone who is more familiar with Adachi.

  In regards to the WP:NGYMNAST, I’m not entirely swayed by the Liukin Invitational Elite as an ‘elite’ competition (I don’t necessarily agree with what defines ‘elite’, but it is what it is). Although this is a problem, I think there is also a problem with the sourcing. Personally, I don’t think he is notable for his own article. As a former gymnast myself in my youth, I would love as many gymnastic articles as possible. However, we can’t go creating articles for every gymnast who we cannot confirm are notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fats40boy11 Adachi ranked 7th at the All-Japan championships, which makes him one of the most promising. If you don’t think it should be in the article or need sources to back the claim, you are free to edit or add your opinion on the article’s talk page, not in deletion discussion. Also, Liukin Invitational Elite meets WP:NGYMNASTICS’s criteria to be an elite competition with at least 8 notable gymnasts: Junpei Oka, Kazuyuki Takeda, Seiya Taura, Asher Hong, William Emard, Javier Sandoval, Yevgen Yudenkov, Ryosuke Doi... NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response NguyenDuyAnh1995. However, I think it is reasonable to bring up issues with sourcing here as we may be able to improve the article rather than delete it, and this would be visible to other users who are at the AFD. It isn’t just the problem with the Facebook source, which was the one that I pointed out earlier, but the other sources as well. It feels a bit like some are mirrors of the source, which I’m sure you disagree with, but this is what I feel like when looking at it. Of course, the main issue of concern is whether Liukin Invitational Elite passes WP:NGYMNASTICS and this is what most people are more than likely going to look at in this AFD. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NguyenDuyAnh1995, it is completely reasonable to mention existing sources in an AFD discussion. At some point, this discussion needs to be closed and countering opinions that there are no sources establishing notability by mentioning specific sources that do this can have an important impact on the closer's decision on whether or not an article has promise and should be kept or whether it should be deleted. The AFD closer isn't reviewing the article talk page to see if these discussions have been happening there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The keep !voter above was blocked for socking in AfDs. Anyway, no sources meeting GNG have been identified; the sockmaster's insistence that stats databases from governing sports organizations are SIGCOV and independent is utterly meritless on both counts; the article talk page is not where deletion discussions should be held; and absent at least one source of SIGCOV cited in the article, this topic fails SPORTCRIT and therefore cannot presume existence of coverage through NGYMNAST. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 4 August 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.