Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination)

Kamil Białas

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the topic meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).
I did a quick search and found this and this. (Two articles by Dziennik Polski, titled "Kamil Białas znów stanął na podium" and "Łyżwiarze nie mogą się rozwijać bez startów".) There's also a YouTube interview, here.
The Polish website says "Sorry, you have been blocked", so I don't think I should bother to read and search further. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media platforms are user-generated and should never be provided as references to articles. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dziennik Polski is a newspaper.
Or are talking about YouTube? If it is an official account of a respected media brand or journalist, then it can be used. (As any other documentary or reportage.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about YouTube. Even if the source comes from an official account of a media brand, social media can't be used anywhere as they are user-generated sites, thus generally unreliable per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:SELFPUB. Social media as references also don't demonstrate the article's notability. Otherwise, I thought we only used reliable secondary sources... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the pages you are linking?
· WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is completely unrelated to this discussion.
· WP:SELFPUB actually says the opposite of what you are saying: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information [about themselves]". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I don't understand why are are attacking me. :-) When I posted my first comment on this page, I didn't see the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas) where you voted "weak keep" and showed exactly the same sources I found. You should better say something to the nominator. Who nominated this article twice with exactly the same rationale. I don't know about the English Wikipedia, but on some other Wikipedias (in some other languages, like Russian, for example) it is explicitly forbidden to nominate an article again for the same reason. (It is done as a measure against those who are obsessed and would otherwise nominate the same article again and again even after they have been told it can stay. They do it in hope that their opponents will get bored or will simply not notice a new nomination.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:SPORTCRIT with multiple pieces of SIGCOV presented from reliable sources, which the nominator fails to address in any capacity. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]