Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Gill (gymnast)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Sourcing is light, but not non-existent and reasonable arguments on both sides as to the notability of Olympic athletes in general have been made. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gill (gymnast)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Harry Gill (gymnast) (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)

He competed as part of a team of 45 British Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming last, with us knowing little beyond that.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

A search of Welsh Newspaper archives shows a few passing mentions as "H Gill", but nothing significant. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As BeanieFan11 points out, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to biographies. Per WP:NOTROUTINE: bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. Each person and biography is unique. As pointed out before, Gill is especially unique! Olympedia.org is registered in the UK and is developed by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians, also centered in the UK. It also has international coverage but Gill is not part of that international coverage. Gill represented Great Britain, here the UK, in the 1908 Summer Olympics. ANYBIO is met with no WP:BLP concern! gidonb (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My keep is also by the WP:GNG. Per said biography and source identified by User:Bungle. Since we established that multiple WP:RS, WP:INDEPTH and WP:V sources exist, the nomination can be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I'm not sure we can say that "multiple" sources exist that demonstrate notability. I have seen biographical articles with greater depth of coverage deleted before now. The news article I found about the embezzlement verifies this aspect of his biography and probably contributes meaningfully, but I remain unconvinced there is a sufficient amount of significant coverage for this to be an indisputable keep. I'd like to say otherwise, as I am keen to expand articles of this nature but only where coverage exists. I'm still neutral on the outcome of this though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle, I am 100% convinced that the source is WP:INDEPTH and also otherwise great. To your point, it is likely that some articles with similar in-depth sources have been deleted at one point of time or another, however, past mistakes are a totally unacceptable feedback system. See for example WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The principle that we do not want to be informed by past mistakes has been applied all through policies and guidelines several years ago. A perfect development! Note that we experience an avalanche of nominations, some articles are undeservedly deleted via WP:PROD, so among the masses, some deletions will go wrong. No need to repeat that. gidonb (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Completely meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTDATABASE is something when it's completely a data with nothing. But if the admin things its a database then must delete it. @@@XyX talk 01:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. DanCherek (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have looked and I can't say I am satisfied with what I have found that would make me want to either a) expand the article or b) consider it worth advocating to keep. Some passing mentions claim he was "well-known" in Abertillery although I have yet to find anything i'd be comfortable stating is significant. I'm afraid I also agree with BilledMammal that the Olympedia entry cannot be classed as evidence of WP:ANYBIO. There are certainly a fair few mentions of him in various newspapers from the period, but all brief/passing and none which in my view are enough to assert notability. I am somewhat on the fence and may persevere with searching but at this moment I am leaning delete. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    12 April update: I have found this newspaper article from 1936 which details the embezzlement charges and subsequent prison sentence. This is more about the case for which Gill was a key element of, rather than about him individually. There is otherwise very little I have found and I don't know if an article about being sentenced to prison is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It offers some info that is not about the case, such as that he was married at the age of 21, had a child when sentenced and was held in "high esteem" (as well as responsibilities he had). It still isn't enough for me to !vote keep though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - newspapers of the day would almost always have referred to athletes like Gill as either Gill or H Gill (I'd go as far as to suggest that adding an initial shows more significance). Given the evidence we have, I'd say there's about enough to keep here. It's not an obvious keep, sure, but I think there's about enough and, I'd hazard, more in offline sources than we'll ever be able to find online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue Square Thing: As much as i'd like to be able to agree, unfortunately we can't keep based on an assumption of there being historic material available. For what it's worth, I have already done searches under "H Gill", "H. Gill" etc and as noted, I saw numerous passing mentions but unfortunately none that i'd feel would be accepted as sufficiently significant. I am quite familiar and experienced in historic biographical researching and up to now I haven't been successful here. With that said, I remain on the fence and neutral (to a point) but we have to make decisions on what we know, or can evidence. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw Im fairly certain that I've seen keeps based on precisely that assumption in the past - certainly when they've been edge cases I think it's just about enough to err on the side of keeping. And this is certainly not clear cut. I should add that there is, as Lugnuts suggests above, an obvious redirect possibility that could be used here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in a fair few AfDs of this nature recently, and on the most part (nearly always, actually) I have put the effort in to bring them up to a "keep-able" state and then !voted as such. I can't advocate keeping an article based on assumption or hope; keep rationales on that basis hold little to no weight when determining a consensus. I'd be very happy to be able to expand this article and express a desire to keep, which is my primary focus on wikipedia, but I am not seeing clear evidence of that being the right decision here (at this moment). Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing interesting here at all. Competed in the Olympics, failed to win a medal. Led his local gymnastics club - not in the least surprising for an Olympic athlete, club is not otherwise notable. Fought in WWI - like almost every other able-bodied man of the day. Embezzlement - not very interesting. Family status - not remotely interesting. A very normal guy who had the chance to win an Olympic medal and lost. Nwhyte (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he passes the GNG. And no evidence there are likely to exist the independent reliable sources that he will. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Gill_(gymnast)&oldid=1090274508"