Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete)

message: So maybe i'm a bit naieve, but here we have an olympian, and the delete side is unusualy confrontational and aggressive.  See the latest uncivil edit summary.  Is this some sort of beachhead?  Or is there something else that makes this a such a battle?--Cube lurker (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well unfortunately notability-type discussions do provoke passionate responses. I think deep down it is an issue that many Wikipedians hold dearly, and in the upmost of good faith, because it is tied closely into the encyclopedic mission of the project. As for whether or not this is a "beachhead" front, I have had the same thought. While there is no fault with putting into action a person's own philosophy and belief, I do think that once it becomes clear that the issue is rooted in differing interpretation and application of policy that the discussion moves to the pertinent policy/guideline page. In this case, while there are few periphery issues, the root disagreement is over the application and interpretation of the "highest level clause" in WP:BIO. Regardless of how this AfD turns out, this is a disagreement that will manifest itself again in the future unless these issues are hammered out on the WP:BIO page. I think more of this "passion" would be better served on that page rather than making this article a "cause celebre". AgneCheese/Wine 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are 2 types of people, those who say look at what he/she did, they're notable, let's find sources, and those who say i don't see sources, must be non notable.  Both acting in good faith as you say.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are missing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Athletes and exemption from WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Some people may see this AfD as a test case. I don't think "i don't see sources, must be non notable" is a fair summary. For me it's more like "i don't see and cannot find sources, may or may not be notable, delete/redirect in such cases unless/until sources are found". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry all, I should've mentioned the discussion in my nom. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link gives me a better understanding of how we got to where we are.  PrimeHunter, That comment wasn't meant to be directed personally, and I appologize if any offense was taken.  I didn't mean it that way.  It was a throw away line that should have been thrown away.  Clearly there are more then 2 types.  It was more a reaction to some of the afd's i've seen in general.  Afd's listed minutes after articles creation where references end up being easily found.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this one hung around for awhile at least. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to imply this one was nominated too quickly, that was some others i've seen.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Cube lurker, no offense was taken and I'm glad you are more nuanced that the line could indicate. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What am I missing?