Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. M. Woods

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 Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics#St. Louis Amateur Athletic Association. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert. Sandstein 09:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Woods

[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:GNG through lack of significant coverage, either provided or identifiable. Such coverage is unlikely to be found, if it even exists, as all we know about him is that he won silver in the 1904 Olympics, that his last name is Woods, and that his first initials are A. M. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Athletes presumed notable if they had won a metal at any modern (post 1896) summer Olympics. WP:NOLYMPICS While I can't find the discussion for reliability for the two sources, it shows up as green in User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter Justiyaya 07:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NSPORT, it doesn't replace WP:GNG, and so GNG must still be met. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NSPORT: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1904 Olympics were hardly a normal Olympics with a true process of choosing competitotrs who were seen as the best avialble. Treating medaling there the same as medaling at other Olympics is to ignore the actual conditions under which they were held.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the prior sentence: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia and the succeeding sentence: If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. But you knew this already. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the Missouri History Museum there are two books of the St. Louis Amateur Athletic Association. which good be help full: Annual report and [1]. Maybe somebody can visit the museum or ask for more details. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe either of those would be considered independent or reliable, though the annual report might contain information about him, such as his name or date of birth, that could be helpful in finding additional information if such information exists (the Annual handicap athletic meet seems less likely to contain such information, as I assume he was not disabled) BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering how many medals were won in 1904 by a men with a wooden leg, I am not sure I would assume the not disabled part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I contacted the Museum and good a scan of the 1904-1905 Report. I uploaded the report to archive.org. The only sentences about the Olympics are: "Second prize was taken in the Olympic championships. A match game was won against the best team from the Six Indian Tribes of Canada." So there no new information about the players. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really know nothing about this person. The 1904 Olympics were more just an addition to the 1904 WOrld's Fair then a true Olympics. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS as currently written. If that changes, then the issue can be revisited. Attempts to get around this resemble WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than following the intent of the policy. Canadian Paul
- He does, but per WP:NSPORTS WP:GNG must still be met. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of GNG, which trumps any subguidelines of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Therapyisgood, per WP:ATD. I'm under the general impression that many participants in the early Olympiads did not receive a lot of attention. Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong. gidonb (talk) 04:21, 7 February 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.