Deletion of Gérald Bertheloot

Comment: A google search is woefully inadequate in assessing notability for someone like Bertheloot. Likewise, databases such as Newspapers.com are also insufficient because they do not include sources from the non-English speaking world. It seems prudent (perhaps essential) to check French and Belgian sources from the late 1920s and early 1930s to see what type of coverage Bertheloot actually received. Barring negative results from such a search, and in the case of a pre-Internet subject most likely to be covered in the non-English-speaking world, I do not think that there is a sound basis for rebutting the presumption of notability that flows from 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLYMPICS)

Comment: per , which says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. Dr. Blofeld's point that "we can't currently access them and are unlikely to for a Very long time if ever" isn't relevant; offline and hard-to-reach sources still exist, even if an individual editor can't access them. Likewise,  says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the subject's notability. Personally, I agree that this article is not interesting and won't win any awards, but I disagree that it makes the website crap. The website is fine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:ARTN)

Comment: After the last two failed AfDs, the proper place for this discussion is the policy page, not individual articles, and the discussion linked above does not seem to have led to anything clear at all. I'm going to essentially copy and paste what I wrote the last time:  doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1928, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes at the national level. In 2020 in English, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he participated in one event at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Belgian publications from the 1920s.  exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy  with ease. For a country like Belgium, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their Olympians that would easily satisfy , I just can't access it (or at least read it).  represents that consensus that these sources likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLYMPICS||WP:N)

Comment: Competing in the Olympics makes you notable based on common sense.  Not sure why this keeps coming up since these articles always get kept don't they?  The Notability guidelines all have a disclaimer saying "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  See that last part?  And despite some desperately trying to ignore the subject specific guidelines,  clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right".  So either common sense or the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing, proves the subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: per , which says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. I agree with the reasoning of
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: per , and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLY||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: We should not be trying to create articles without secondary sources to speak of; per  which trumps notability guidelines. SNGs that recommend the creation of such unsuitable articles should be revised. NB, calling a good faith editor "notorious troll" is completely unacceptable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Meets . The question of should the standards be so open should be discussed elsewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATH)

Comment: Nominator acknowledges that the subject competed in the Olympics, so the subject meets . What else? As it is the subject passes the SNG. Those who appear in the Olympics are notable. In addition to SNG - not that it is needed but  as other editors have stated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLY||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: Competed at the Olympics, so meets . A couple of recent similar discussions for Olympians at AfD can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Alciati|here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Chol (weightlifter)|here. Both were kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLY)