Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Ista

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 redirect to Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Shooting. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Ista

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also don't have an article on French or Dutch or another Belgian language, for which I suggest to delete it per WP:TNT to encourage the creation of a new article in the case another notable Ernest Ista arises. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics. It doesn't matter what there is in other Wikis (although in fact there is an equivalent article in the Polish wiki). As far as I can see there IS no other notable Ernest Ista but even if there were, we would want an actual article. I don't see any present argument for a TNT. Ingratis (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you like. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria for a standalone article due to lack significant coverage and no known achievements. There was a late 19th century artist of the same name who may be more notable (evident from a simple google search); this is enough to oppose redirecting. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not so: this is back to front. First produce an article on the other Ernest Ista - from the very low valuations of his works on the art sites he seems very unlikely to be a notable artist, which is why I discounted him - and then we'll see. You haven't given any other reason not to redirect - {{R to list entry}} meets the case exactly. Ingratis (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Utter nonsense. As far as we can tell, the two individuals are equally non-notable (and discountable) due to lack of available significant coverage and lack of any known noteworthy achievement or award. Retaining a redirect to an article that contains virtually no information about one of them is not helpful - WP season will find all article mentions perfectly adequately. WP:R#DELETE applies. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the civility. Same point-missing comments as always. There's a real difference between an article already in existence that can be redirected to a list entry (what on earth do you think the template is for otherwise?) and a non-existent article on a real nobody, but you don't seem to grasp that and I won't waste more time on a brick wall. If you can point to WP:R#DELETE for a redirect that doesn't exist yet, I can point to WP:R#KEEP. Ingratis (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except this isn't an article in any real sense. It's a database entry mirror, so there is nothing to retain. There also isn't a target article that contains any meaningful context about the subject. To illustrate the absurdity of the argument, using your rationale, we could equally as justifiably add the artist to a list article and redirect there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        see below. Ingratis (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this person did anything notable. Nigej (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Shooting where a note can be added. This is perWP:ATD which is policy. Such a move will ensure that the attribution and sourcing in the original article are retained and allow it to be expanded as and when other sources become available - we're not on a deadline here remember and it's entirely possible that those sources may emerge. If we need to disambiguate along the way then that's just fine. Certainly a modern athlete competing in the Olympic games these days would, no doubt, create significant coverage and be noted in a number of places in some detail, so I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that he did "nothing notable". Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comments above, this is nothing more than a mirror of a database entry so there is nothing to retain. Also, NOLY was reduced to medal winners only, precisely because even modern era competitors do not generate significant coverage unless they achieve something. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There IS now content which is not in the databases: he was also Belgian national shooting champion in 1907. Ingratis (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2022 (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.