Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Denman

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.

Frederick Denman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Worth noting - a nomination (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, finished #6 individual and team was #4 at the 1952 Olympics [1] which does not meet
  WP:GNG either. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete We have decided that non-medaling Olympians do not get default inclusion. The other sourcing is not enough to show a passing of GNG, and so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched
  Newspapers.com expecting to find SIGCOV but found the coverage to be very thin. Nothing that would satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete my searches were no more fruitful than those above. Denman existed, but nothing to approach GNG. Star Mississippi 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Denman had the best result of the three US competitors. For some reason, the other two are not nominated for deletion. Deb (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non sequitur
    WP:OSE. Unfortunately we have tens of thousands of these mass-productions without sigcov that may need to go, and they are among them. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Non sequitur. Denman is the most successful of the three and there is no consensus that all stubs without sigcov have to be removed in any set period. Deb (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're saying that an article that fails both GNG and the relevant SNG should be kept because... there are similar articles that are even less notable but have not been nominated first? That's a textbook example of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lennart97 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. In the future, I would encourage editors to simply be bold and redirect pages like this where a clear target exists rather than create a bunch of AfDs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama - Previous efforts at cleaning up stubs using redirection have seen the redirections simply reverted by the creator. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Was that before or after the changes to NOLY meant these people failed the SNG in additon to any GNG failure? I redirected a few articles from the same events as these AfDs last week for individuals where there was a clear target to redirect to (either the event, or the country if they competed in more than one event but only at one Olympics) and have not been reverted. I can understand why people would have reverted the BOLD redirects when NOLY still said they were notable though. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - Yes, they are definitely still doing it. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I get what you're saying, but that looks like a bad redirect and a good revert to me. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We literally have something in SPORTSCRIT saying you shouldn’t base notability solely on Sports-reference.com, and Olympedia is just an amateur-maintained copy of Sports-reference.com. But if you think that should be kept, can you now see why AFD tends to be the better way to go for these, despite the time taken? FOARP (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth doing a quick skim of the cited sources and other language wikis before redirecting? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Lugnuts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOPAGE. ––FormalDude talk 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. AryKun (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. Is there anything stopping people from speedy redirecting these in future, if there's definitely no coverage? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:BEFORE of course, and if you get reverted, then you can take it to AfD if you still feel it appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Lugnuts is of course one of the people who has reverted these attempts to create redirects. I feel this shows that he is being disingenous in arguing for redirects. His actions before have amounted to throwing a tantrum that people are not agreeing with him that every person who has ever competed in the Olympics is notable. I think this should cause people to pause in considering advocating his unending fighing for redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have BOLD-ly redirected about a dozen of Lugnuts' Olympian articles and he has not reverted a single one. In any case, Lugnuts' conduct is irrelevant to whether this article should be redirected or not. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]