Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Wade (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wade

[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)

The 2012 deletion discussion substantially focused on whether a person of this name met WP:MUSICBIO
Two subsequent WP:G4 deletions (3 March 2013 and 9 September 2013) were based on that discussion.
The 2021 version of this article is about a sportsperson, and so is not "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted"
It would appear to me that the 2021 version does not pass any number of tests (WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and so on for notability. There is no sport-specific guideline for fencing, but WP:SPORTBASIC would seem appropriate here.

As always, happy to be proven wrong - Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thanks for re-entering this as an AfD discussion. Although not substantially identical to the first deleted version, it does suffer the same issue of having no credible claim of significance, albeit now in a different field. The given regional and student-level tournament medals do not meet the relevant notability requirements, especially given the absence of any published, non-trivial, secondary reliable sources. In my view, there is a strong possibility (as was suggested in the first deletion discussion) that the article is autobiographical, only this time the subject has chosen to portray himself as noteworthy for fencing, instead of as a musician. —Ave (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interestingly (and rather amusingly), if you google search the subject and 'fencing' (see here) as I did in an attempt to verify some of the claims made in the article, the results appear to be limited to a couple of non-descript profiles on the European Fencing Confederation and the International Fencing Federation websites, a summary of results which don't include the medal-winning placings listed in the infobox, and a link to a dubious claim made by the subject on his LinkedIn to have captained his fencing team "at the 2018 Commonwealth Games" despite the fact that fencing has been absent from the games since 1970! The claim to have competed at "multiple World Cups" is also similar to the ambiguous "numerous World Cups" phrase used in the article. —Ave (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 2: Curiously, that sentence has since been changed to read "at the 2018 Commonwealth Championships" [emphasis added]. However, despite my best attempts, I cannot find any evidence to corroborate that claim either. There is also a new claim to "regularly compete for Great Britain at major international fencing tournaments" which, again, seems dubious – a theme of puffery and peacocking is definitely emerging. Given the history of the article, a salt seems sensible. —Ave (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Zero evidence of meeting any notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:SPORTBASIC. Endorse Salting as well. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2021 (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.