Connor O'Brien (alpine skier) : Olympic athlete.  SIGCOV per https://www.esbl.ee/biograafia/Connor+Olev+Martin_O'Brien -- Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Sportspeople ,  and Canada .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] at 2020 olympics, 11,300 competitors participated, so wikipedia needs a page on each of them?  Newtonewyork ( talk ) 13:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the definition of trivial coverage.  We need much more than that if you want to speedy keep this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Looks like there's enough coverage to me, especially noting that we have no Estonian sources from the time.  The link above looks like an entry in some kind of Estonian sports biographical dictionary and it is well over 150 words despite being in an abbreviated language (SIGCOV).  The article itself has a link to a New York Times feature story .  There's also some coverage on Newspapers.com, such as the Kingston Whig-Herald and The Olympian ; and there's also a story in The Gazette probably regarding him, with the name, dates and college matching up.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SPEEDY HARD DELETE - the NYT article doesn't even mention his name in the title, and if you read it, you can see that it's a current affairs minor tidbit.  I am sure he's a agreat skier, but a wikipedia page?  really?  Also if you read the wikipedia article itself as it stands, there's barely anything on the guy's actualy skying career... its all about his current day job Newtonewyork ( talk ) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate ! vote: Newtonewyork ( talk • contribs )  has already cast a ! vote above.  [ reply ] You do not get to ! vote when you are already the nominator.  That the New York Times article doesn't mention his name in the title is irrelevant; its a 1,200+ word piece in one of the world's most globally prominent papers focusing on him.  All that matters for getting a Wikipedia article is that the person has in-depth coverage, something that this subject clearly satisfies.  The potential issue of there being too much focus on a business career is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you show where the in-depth coverage is?  That article from 1994 is in-depth coverage?  Ok so anyone mentioned in a New York Times article deserves a wikipedia article?  Editing vs. Deleting: the fact that the article is all focused on his business career is simply to highlight that it surely is being used as a braggard-style cv to impress god-knows-who (but surely, family members, business associates and love interests), but clearly not the many many people interested in knowing who represented Estonia in skying at past Olympic Games.  Newtonewyork ( talk ) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And to be clear, wikipedia bots now don't even allow the trimming and condensing of Mr. O'Brien's copious irrelevant business addendums, so a deletion seems to be the only way to right the ship... see the editing history of the article.  Newtonewyork ( talk ) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you show the wikipedia policy stating that nominators do not get to vote?  I am sorry but since candidates in most democratic countries can vote in elections, I assumed I got a vote here as well.  Also I am not sure if this deletion is subject to a 'vote' Finally, I suppose you don't mind if I remove the entire 'business career' section of our famous Estonian alpine skier?  Newtonewyork ( talk ) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion ... nominators should refrain from repeating this."  As for why you would remove the entire business career section, I'm not quite sure I see the purpose?  Everything looks sourced?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1- Because the business career section is irrelevant to the skying which is the only reason this article would stand in the first place. , which of your sources discusses the business careers?  Where in the NYT article, is any of the subsequent events deemed interesting enough to be covered?  2- Because the business career section strongly implies that the article in itself has other purposes than to inform curious folks about Estonia's past olympic participants.  You understand what self-promotion means?  3 - Because the business career section is 90% of the article, and frankly, will all due respect, on its own, the business career section would never warrant an article.  How can you argue with a straight face then that this article is about the skying?  4 - Because you - BeanieFan11 - argue that this deletion process should actually be an editing process, but somehow you don't want to indicate what part of the article should be 'edited'.  Is it possible that some folks who feel that 90% of an article is irrelevant, could feel 'deletion' is a better solution.  5 - Because frankly, with all due respect to the subject of the article itself, the inclusion of the business career portion is an embarrassment because it implies such high insecurity that Mr. O'Brien's ego requires a massaged wikipedia article, a character trait which is not lost on anyone with a few gray hair.  Hint: its a trait that's not particularly well perceived, or put another way, it's a flaw Newtonewyork ( talk ) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics , Estonia ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per entry at Eesti spordi biograafiline leksikon (ESBL) as well as an entry at Eesti Entsüklopeedia .  Also found coverage at Eesti Elu and mentions in Postimees and Õhtuleht .  ExRat ( talk ) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per BeanieFan and ExRat.  TLA tlak 04:11, 16 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