Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Salem Al-Tunaiji

Mohamed Salem Al-Tunaiji

[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)

Declined prod. The added sources [1] are merely results listings and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ATD, to United Arab Emirates at the 1992 Summer Olympics. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Arab Emirates at the 1992 Summer Olympics: Cursory searches reveal no WP:SIGCOV for WP:SPORTSBASIC to be met here. Let'srun (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Arab Emirates at the 1992 Summer Olympics I think this makes the most sense here. This individual lacks SIGCOV but he is associated with this event that does have sufficient coverage to justify notability. Therefore, he should simply redirect there and some of the information on this page should potentially be included on that page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article with several new sources and documentation of the subject's national record before it was nominated. Subject set a national record in an Olympic event for a country with population of over 10 million people. The 1990s when the subject was most active were a well-known digitization gap before most newspapers began publishing digitally but after most online archives end. Al-Tunaiji represented UAE at several international championships and just because we may not be yet equipped to find the sources doesn't mean a keep !vote is not justified, because notability is always determined by the existence of sources, and never by their presence or lack of presence in an article. I agree that secondary sources providing significant prose-based coverage are needed. --Habst (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that the mass nomination of hundreds of articles by the nominator is controversial and there is no present consensus on how best to handle these. --Habst (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mass !voting of keep in articles, without finding any SIGCOV to support such !votes, and repeated mis-use of WP:NEXIST which requires proof of such SIGCOV (not merely asserting that it exists) has also not gone un-noticed. This is, by my count, the 20th time this issue has been raised with you. There is no SIGCOV in any of the links you've added - these are all passing mentions in non-independent sources. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FOARP. Habst's constantly recycling of NEXIST has been called tendentious. I think it would be about 50 times this has been used with zero effect on AfD outcome. I've not seen a closing admin say "NEXIST overrides any argument for delete or redirect presented, we should keep based on Habst's NEXIST rationale." LibStar (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar and @FOARP, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. Who has called my editing tendentious? It's been at least 58 times now that similar articles have been recently nominated for deletion on identical grounds, with the vast majority of them not being closed as delete -- not even including 100+ PRODs that have been improved with SIGCOV before they could get to AfD. I have never argued that "NEXIST overrides any argument for delete or redirect" and I strongly disagree with that sentiment. If you have a disagreement about the notability guidelines or their application, it's best to make that argument instead of making personal comments again. --Habst (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list you just posted shows redirection to be by far the most common outcome. Redirection is just another way of removing the article from articlespace, similar to deletion. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but would just say that a redirect outcome isn't the same as a delete outcome because redirects preserve page history, which allows the articles to be re-created when SIGCOV is found. --Habst (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial at all, this is just spin to deter me from nominating athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even just looking at that discussion: it's 4 supports to 10 oppose !votes by my count, which hardly seems very controversial to me. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, there are hundreds of comments in these discussions (only one of which is by me). Discissions are never votes, so context is always relevant. --Habst (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. FOARP (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]