Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Starkey (rower)

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 redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. This one is more complex then some of the recent Olympians even when disregarding some of the non-policy based input. Sourcing at the moment does not appear to exist to meet ANYBIO, but there appears to be a chance it could be found. Therefore redirect preserves the history, attribution should someone want to spin this back out when sourcing is added. Star Mississippi 03:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Starkey (rower)[edit]

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

Bob Starkey (rower) (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)

Starkey was a non-medaling rower. The disambiguation makes it a poor redirect. My searches were not able to find any examples of any significant coverage of Starkey John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting would be better than deleting. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; unless and until a "List of British Olympic rowers" (where a brief bio could be written) exists there is no suitable target as the two articles where he is mentioned say almost nothing about him. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BeanieFan11, actually Olympedia doesn't have bios for each Olympian. 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 does have some international coverage but Bob Starkey (rower) is NOT part of that international coverage. Starkey represented Great Britain, here the United Kingdom, in the 1928 Summer Olympics. ANYBIO is met with - sorry, this is not related to your comment but I forgot to mention this in my keep opinion - ABSOLUTELY NO WP:BLP CONCERN! gidonb (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have established that A-not all Olympians are notable B-Olympedia.org is not in-depth enough or limited enough to alone be enough to establish notability. The bio is not at a level that would meet the criteria as you try to argue it would.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He comprehensively fails every criteria of ANYBIO since (as far as we know from the sources we have) he has not received or been nominated for any award or honour; has not made a widely recognised contribution to anything (being listed as a competitor in an event, even at the Olympics, is not enough); and does not have an entry in any national biographical dictionary. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 lines is not a "bio" is is just part of a sports stat page. People need to stop abusing words. There is no way every that the Olympiamedia 3 lines meets the requirments of anybio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the full text of the alledged "brief bio". This is not a bio at all. In fact it focuses more on the team Starkey was part of than the individual. This is not by any strestch of the imagination enough for meting I guess point 3 which is "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Olympedia is not a dictionary of national biography. So that point is not met. Clearly he does not meet 1, because merely participating in the Olympics is not a honor enough to merit an article, and I am not seeing at all how we could argue he made an enduring contribution to the national record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lambert - DO NOT copy and paste text from another website and add it to anywhere on Wikipedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three responses by the nominator! My response will start with a bit of context. Bob Starkey is a historic figure, who died more than half a century ago!!! Meaning there is absolutely no WP:BLP concern. He engaged in a team sport, so some of his activities would be shared with others. The National Dictionary question had just been asked, it was a great question, and had been adequately answered. Both Olympedia and the International Society of Olympic Historians are centered in the UK, as was Bob Starkey while still a sportsman, so in this case it is a National Dictionary coverage. It should be noted and accepted, perhaps even appreciated, if only for the fact that it is unstoppable anyway, that the world is gradually globalizing and that national dictionaries are becoming more globalized as well. So Olympedia has international coverage but that isn't important as Starkey is part of its National Dictionary coverage. The biographies in Olympedia are written by true sports historians, the content is reliable and independent, so we should count our blessings with this resource. Keeping the sillies to the end: the idea that this is not a biography is laughable with "biography" written right above it. The nominator then uses the small font and long lines for a desperate claim about the length. Starkey's immigration, right there in his BIOGRAPHY, had hopefully nothing to do with any former teammate either. It's clearly Starkey's own biography! gidonb (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no, no, no. Olympia is not a dictionary of national biography. There is a British National Biogrpahical Dictionary, Olympia is not it. Olympia is a sports database. It is not a source that adds towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does Olympia have to do with this discussion?Jacona (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I meant Olympedia. It is an overly comprehensive database, it is not a source that can be used to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for clarifying, but why is Olympedia not a source that can be used to show notability? It is not listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is frequently used as a WP:RS. It has many in-depth articles that provide WP:SIGCOV. It is compiled and maintained by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians. Do you have any reason to call it unreliable? Jacona (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: The issue is not that Olympedia is unreliable. It's that SIGCOV requires some depth of coverage, and it is generally agreed that database entries like this don't qualify as such. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is that we have an editor who can't tell the difference between Olympia and Olympedia claiming all sorts of nonsense competency is required. Jacona (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That link says "assume good faith". The good faith assumption is that I misspelled a word. I had clearly looked at the page in question, and was clearly stating that it was not enough sourcing to constitute significant coverage. The personal attacks you are carying on are very rude and the antithesis of the type of postive discourse that would amount to assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the personal attacks, especially for an error that is very easy to make and when it is patently obvious what was meant. Incidentally, you should know that not being listed at perennial sources does not infer reliability; indeed, there have been many occasions to question the reliability of Olympedia (e.g. see recent changes to 1900 equestrian, where among other things, at least three competitors had been mis-identified) and I would want to see intellectually independent corroborating sources for much of it's data, especially for earlier Olympics and Olympians. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really anything personal, WP:CIR, and across a wide plethora of AfD's there is a body of evidence showing it's lacking. It's probably not due to a lack of skill, but rather a lack of effort. Jacona (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First there was nothing new in what JPL said. Now there is nothing new in what JPL said himself. It has all been thoroughly answered and explained so I'll keep it at that. gidonb (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, finalist of the “Wyfold Challenge Cup” a main rowing matches in that era. What if he had one 5 main competitions? Or 10? The performances is the most important content for Olympians. There are also Olympic medalist with not much more information. If a historian or interested person would be interested in such a person, his performances couldn’t be found on Wikipedia anymore be deleting this page. I understand that it’s not a long bio, but what does that matter? Or to save all the bits of historical bio content it would be nice to have a page like Rowers at the 1928 Summer Olympics, or at least a page where bits of biographic content of the rower could be added. 109.37.149.67 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing would be lost since he would still be listed in both the articles that he is currently. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG as searches (by BeanieFan, Jacona, JohnPackLambert, and others) have failed to turn up WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The "obituary" offered above (here) appears to be a paid death notice, does not in any way constitute SIGCOV, and makes no mention of his "athletic career" -- strongly undermining any assertion that he is notable for such. Finally, it is well established that inclusion in comprehensive databases like Olympedia do NOT constitute SIGCOV. Accordingly, we are left with ZERO in the way of SIGCOV, and the "keep" voters are simply straining to undermine the prior decision that mere participation in the Olympics does not create a presumption of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very fact that the death notice does not mention sports at all is a strong indication he was not at all notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. For even the slightest beginning of such an indication you would need his post-sports career to be mentioned, trumping the rest. Not there. gidonb (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. If he was notable as an athlete, some mention would be made ... and there would be more than just a paid death notice. There isn't, because he wasn't. Cbl62 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what else appeared where because digitization is not comprehensive. British Olympedia contains sports biographies and includes the rower's death. We work with we have. This paid death announcement does not include career details, one way or the other, so nothing can be concluded thereafter. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know what else appeared where" is not a justification for a stand-alone article. Absent a showing of SIGCOV, this really should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NP as this was not the context the phrase was used. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case Olympedia is clearly not a source providing significant coverage. Even if it were, which again it is not in this case, GNG requires multiple sources, so that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This point too has been explained under my opinion. We'll see where all this repeating leads too. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that nobody has come up with any SIGCOV whatsoever. Absent that, there is no basis for a stand-alone article. And per the discussion at NSPORTS (here), the Olympedia entry presented here does not constitute SIGCOV. Nor does the paid death notice. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you believe from the get-go. The question is really whether repeating one's opinion again and again and again helps. It's possible. Time will tell. 21:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed -- though despite the volubility, I still don't understand what policy-based rationale supports a "Keep" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you did not look everywhere. I'm more than ok with that. gidonb (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one source you suggest has been shown to not be enough to meet GNG, and you have provided nothing that would add to GNG. The Olympedia source with 1 sentance on this person and a few more about other things coatracking on the brief biography and the paid death notice that does not even mention his sports career are not enough to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that the subject meets GNG/BASIC as is required for a standalone article. Olympedia is the only source of value, but it contains little beyond the usual database record since he is really only the subject of one sentence of the bio, the rest being about the Nottingham Union Boat Club. No value in a redirect as the two potential targets only contain namedrops and the search function will do the job in finding these. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion has been blown out of proportion because it has been raised elsewhere on the sports notability where consensus is hard to reach. There are literally thousands of Olympians with one sentence pages noting participation. This athlete can be verified to have competed. While I understand notability and article quality are principles of wikipedia. It is far to late with Olympic competitors and redirecting to the event is not acceptable as the event is an event and an athlete is a person. I feel sorry for the pages creator as the other 1000 pages are not being critised to this degree. Yachty4000 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are not kept because other articles of as bad or worse quality exist. We jusge articles against Wikipedia inclusion criteria, not against the current state of other articles. Wikipedia inclusion criteria means articles have to meet GNG, which this article does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for "the other 1000 pages are not being critised to this degree", WP:OSE is not a reason to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are actually multiple nominations in process and have been many more over the last few months of non-notable Olympians. Unlike the creator of some of these articles, those of us nominating them for deletion have actually tried to do in-depth searches to find possible sources. That is a much harder process than repositing the stat table info from sports reference.com which was what was done in creating many of these articles. At times there have been people complain that too many olympain articles have been nominated for deletion, which makes this attempt to keep this article because we have not bothered to create a large enough mass of articles for deletion all at once seems unreasonable in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is an excessive amount of bludgeoning going on, extremely repetitive, by the nominator and two others who happen to share his opinion, under the opinion of anyone who dears to reach the conclusion that keeping is the correct way forward. I ask for moderator closing and review. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not "bludgeoning" to point out when votes are based on misundersstandings and false statements about policy. No one has presented anything that would add up to the multiple reliable sources that are indepdent of the subject and each other and that provide significant in-depth coverage that is needed to justify an article. The Olympedia entry does not do that. The paid death notice that does not even mention the amateur sports competition does not do that. There is not one source proferred that is enough to even add towards GNG, let alone the multiple sources it requires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 12 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Starkey_(rower)&oldid=1090274862"