Joseph Otterbeen: The best source is the one-paragraph obituary and the rest are databases, I haven't been able to find better and even his name is unclear.  Rusalkii ( talk ) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Rusalkii ( talk ) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The SR piece is outdated (became Olympedia, which has since updated to reflect that the Olympian was actually named Joseph) – also note that the Nederlands Wikipedia has some more text and lists a bunch of offline sources, including some that specifically seem to be about him (being mentioned in the title).  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics , Sport of athletics ,  and Belgium .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources from the Dutch Wikipedia.  Remember that per WP:NEXISTS we only have to show that sources exist, we don't actually have to have physical or electronic access to them to keep the article.  We know that these sources exist, even though I don't have access to the Dutch media, we can find someone who does to help improve the article: "Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport".  Sportwereld .  4 March 1925.  "Athletiek".  Sportwereld .  18 July 1920.  "Voetloopen - Ronde van Brugge".  Sportwereld .  17 October 1919.  Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean Keep per Habst. The offline sources appear to be likely to have significant coverage, especially the 1925 Sportwereld piece which features him in the title (it seems to be translated, "Our shattered Olympic dream: Otterbeen disappears from our sport"). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Even if the Sportwereld sources above were all SIGCOV, that would count as one source, while GNG needs more. If we actually knew that those sources were SIGCOV we would at least have SPORTCRIT and could potentially delay deletion based on that, but without access we have zero evidence they offer anything beyond routine coverage (and we are explicitly discouraged from assuming anything from headlines). NEXISTS requires the sources to be SIGCOV if they're supposed to contribute to notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a point when...this is just ridiculous. How the heck, then, are we supposed to determine notability for subjects whom we have no access to sources from their time period? Its ridiculous if knowing there's articles featuring and focusing on them is not enough when there's no way to access any sources from that time period ! Common sense would indicate that if a newspaper has a title mentioning someone in such a high light (seems to be saying that the Olympic dreams for the region the paper covers are shattered due to this athlete retiring) in a title of that sort that it would be sigcov. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strike that; remembered that Otterbeen is from Belgium, and the discussion on Georges Demulder mentioned a Belgian newspaper archive. There's over 150 matches for his name here but none are accessible without registration (not sure how to do that personally). @ Gidonb : At the Demulder discussion it sounded like you were able to get access to that source. Can you tell if any of the results for Otterbeen are sigcov? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thanks for your response. Even if the Sportwereld sources above were all SIGCOV – We know for sure they are WP:SIGCOV , we don't have to assume based on titles or otherwise, because we can read the facts cited to them on the Dutch Wikipedia. The sources speak to Otterbeen's intentions ("Otterbeen was originally a professional runner, but with a view to participating in the Antwerp Olympics, he joined the amateurs..."), we know that it would be impossible to read someone's intentions from just a database or results listing. So, based on the reading of WP:SPORTCRIT cited above, we are obligated to delay deletion. Thanks to @ BeanieFan11 's great research, I created an account on Belgica Press and retrieved the 150 matches. For example, look at page 3, top right corner here for some coverage (you shouldn't need an account to view this): [31] . Or see right hand side of page 3 here: [32] I don't know the language, but there are hundreds of matches for Otterbeen's name and I can see many more of them in prose. Would you consider changing your vote to at least "delay deletion" based on this evidence, as your reading of the policy would obligate us to do? -- Habst ( talk ) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not know it is IRS SIGCOV because we do not know whether the facts are being relayed through secondary analysis by independent journalists or if they are coming from non-independent, primary quotes.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thanks, we do know that it is WP:IRS because it comes from a newspaper, Sportwereld , which has an editorial team and it is not sourced to an advertisement.  We also know that the facts aren't coming from quotes, because in the Dutch Wikipedia they don't say that Otterbeen "was quoted" or similar, they simply state the facts as relayed through the journalists.  If they were being sourced from quotes, we'd expect wording such as "Otterbeen said" on nlwiki or even an inclusion of the quote.  Because that isn't there, we know that it's SIGCOV, obligating us to at least delay deletion.  As proof of this, I found the actual cited article here (click the 4th page at the bottom, middle left hand side of the page): "Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport" .  Sportwereld .  4 March 1925.  p. 4.  You can see by reading the article, Otterbeen is not merely quoted, but there is substantial analysis by secondary independent journalists done on the subject.  Based on this, could you please change your vote to delay deletion as obligated by SPORTCRIT, or keep if you think that the multiple sources provided and shown to have existed are sufficient to establish notability?  Thank you, -- Habst ( talk ) 21:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That indeed looks like non-trivial coverage so I will strike my ! vote.  However, just because something comes from a newspaper does not mean it is IRS!  PR notices, specials to the paper, etc. do not get labeled as "advertisements".  And certainly we cannot assume Dutch wikipedia would attribute as a quote every single fact about the guy that was sourced to a quote (by him or anyone else).  We know that editors routinely state basic info derived from quotations as fact.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for striking your vote.  I appreciate your point of view.  In this case, I think we did know it was not sourced to a PR notice or paper special, because the title and contents were known and I can't think of any way that combination could have been part of anything but a standard news article in context.  The editor @ Akadunzio has a great reputation with over 37,000 edits and 14 years of experience, so I think it would have been stated as such if facts were obtained only from quotes.  Now with hindsight, we know that the facts were not obtained from quotes anyways, because we have the full article text and it contains enough non-quote information.  Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - thanks to much work by Habst (and agreement with Beaniefan11's exasperation).  Ingratis ( talk ) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nom, withdraw my nomination per alternative language sources (which I really should have remembered to check) and Habst's research.  Rusalkii ( talk ) 19:02, 26 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep