Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Sylva

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 procedural keep with no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages. ✗plicit 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sylva

[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)

This group of articles involves athletes from some of the earliest Olympics for whom we have no significant coverage, and for whom significant coverage is unlikely to be available as we do not know key biographical information about these individuals that would allow us to find such coverage; the minimum that is missing is their first name and when they died, and most also lack information on when they were born.

This absence of significant coverage is reinforced by reading the summaries that some of them have at Olympedia, which include lines such as "We do not know much about ..." and "We know nothing else of ...".

In some cases, this lack of coverage extends to their participation in the Olympics, with us not knowing which event they competed in, and in one case not knowing if they did compete.

These articles are nominated for deletion as a redirect is inappropriate as these names consisting of an initial and a last name are reasonable search terms for many notable individuals, while prod is not appropriate as most of them meet WP:NSPORT through various criteria.

P. Baur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} -->

J. Baillot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

J. Haller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

E. Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural concern. I am concerned that there is insufficient commonality to mass these all in one AfD. They are from different countries and completed in different sports (ranging from weighlifting to sailing, gymnastics, track, swimming, tug of war (really), and lacrosse). Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least one (S. Abdul Hamid) is already a redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if they didn't medal, how is it that most of them would satisfy NSPORT, thus making prod inappropriate? Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The commonality is that we don't know basic biographical details, which means that it will not be possible to find the significant coverage that we currently lack. Given that, I don't believe the differences matter enough that we need to split this discussion.

As for the redirects, those were created since I nominated these articles.

Regarding NSPORTS, despite the change to NOLYMPICS many of sport-specific guidance includes participation in the Olympics as an indication of notability - I've had a number of prods rejected on those grounds. I would also note that some of them did medal. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do still question the commonality for mass nominating 30 biographies of such disparate persons. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

31, if you count G. Sylva. I understand the concern, and would generally share it, but I believe in this case the lack of basic biographic details (WP:V) is sufficient commonality. BilledMammal (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Each needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The 31 articles here lack the commonality required by WP:BUNDLE. The nom includes medalists who may have a better chance of standing on their own merits. E.g., W. J. Ross and W. R. Gibson - silver medal in lacrosse. It also includes individuals from disparate time periods, sports, and countries. Many or most of them may lack notability, but I can't support the procedural device of a single nom for all 31. Cbl62 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that I believe WP:BUNDLE has been met, both through the commonality discussed above and because articles have been reliable deleted on this basis, including gold and silver medal winners.

I would also say that going on a case-by-case basis here would waste a lot of time, but if there is a consensus that that is needed I will nominate all of these after this discussion has closed. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration of dealing with such a huge mass of micro-stubs. The progress is slower by dealing with them separately, but the procedural concerns are real. If and when separate noms are made, I am happy to look at them again. ~~BTW, the AfD has already resulted in progress, as about half have already been changed by the article creator to redirects.~~ Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being out of process, those redirects are not good, and should be reverted. As an example, anyone searching for P. Ritter would probably be surprised to find themselves at an article in which no Ritter is mentioned; even moreso when they are most likely looking for one of these people. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Absolutely correct. Striking my comment describing the redirects as "progress". Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep, way too many articles nominated at once. They should be discussed individually, not 31 at once. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those !voting "Procedural Keep", can you find significant coverage for even one of these? If you can, then you are correct that this bundle is inappropriate, while if you can't it would suggest the bundle is appropriate and it would be a waste of time to have 31 separate AFD's. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment fails to appreciate the procedural objection. The asserted absence of SIGCOV is not the sort of commonality that supports bundling. See WP:BUNDLE. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that lack of significant coverage isn't why I bundled these together; if it was, this list would be much longer. The reason I bundled them together is the lack of basic biographical information that allows us to determine who these people were, as without that we cannot find significant coverage on them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important procedural note I have removed from the listing those articles which seem to have been (already? prior to the start of the AfD?) been redirected. That leaves a fair amount fewer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some while starting the AFD, some after starting it. I have no objection to their removal, but I would note the discussion by Wjemather and Cbl62 above. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves the fact that many of these would require different outcomes (some should actually be redirected; others should probably deleted because there is no single plausible target and usually this kind of "redirect-from-partial-name-to-disambig-page" (P Ritter being a prime example - see the half dozen actually notable persons at Ritter (surname)#P) isn't really a thing, and the sheer number was a bad idea in the first place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most don't have appropriate redirects, but there is no reason they can't be closed similar to the test AFDs for A. Albert and A. Wilcocks where the closer leaves open the possibility of the redirect being recreated. I also don't believe there is any option other than "redirect" or "delete" for any of the se articles. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirects are similar to P. Ritter, they are inappropriate for the reasons stated by Wjemather. I reverted the redirect on Ritter. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these still seem OK, for ex. there's no other notable "F Verdonck" (see Verdonck). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored S. Abdul Hamid, per Abdul Hamid. I haven't reviewed most of them yet though. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also restored J. Haller, J. Baillot, and E. Gauthier. Some of the others have issues with not being mentioned at the targeted page. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all clearly none of these meet the minimum requirements for meeting GNG so that we can have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most Ok, after taking a look at each one of the remaining ones, there are a fair few for which redirecting would not be a sensible option because there are many people with the same initials and no sensible target (and redirecting from a partial name to a disambig page seems unproductive, as that's where the search function should lead anyway). However, amongst the seven remaining once those are accounted for; there are the following:
1. H Duke
2. J Defert
3. L Lescat
4. L Legru
  ~~N Katravas~~
5. P Baur
6. V Van Hamme
The first one of these could plausibly have one single target (Henry Duke, 1st Baron Merrivale), but whether it is really worth having that redirect (in light of the search function) is dubious [I'll note that there are plenty of historical figures for which we do have such redirects, and in some cases those abbreviations are also commonly found in actual usage, ex. J. S. Bach. Whether those redirects are truly necessary for most figures is another question]. The others are technically unambiguous, so those could be redirected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you regarding V. Van Hamme, N. Katravas, L. Lescat, and J. Defert. However, I believe that P. Baur and L. Legru can be ambiguous and should be deleted; the first due to Patrick Baur, and the second due to Louis Urgel, whose real name was Louise Legru. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BilledMammal: That one wasn't listed at the disambig, hence why I missed it. That's been fixed. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "per above"? Despite the large size of the nomination, per above (including my own comment and those of others), most of the articles are indeed in a very similar situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment N. Katravas has an article on the Greek wiki . His given name is Nikolaos and they have further sources. Jevansen (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody can object, so I've boldly A) checked the Greek language article just to be sure; b) moved the article and c) removed it from here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a Belgian newspaper article about V. Van Hamme, indicating his first name was Victor: Trainer Victor Van Hamme, die zelf een knap gewichtheffer is geweest en verscheidene Olympiaden zooals Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Parijs heeft medegemaakt voor ons land, kon nu terug zijn kunde demonstreeren aan de nieuwelingen.[1] gnu 57 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for that name I'm able to find this, but it is impossible to guess whether this is the same "Victor Van Hamme" or not. In any case, all of this is still far short of SIGCOV. I'll move the article to the full name, but that's about all that can be done for now. It should probably be redirected. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Per the concerns stated above. I'm sure some do merit deletion, but that needs to be determined via individual AfDs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This bundle is too big and diverse to obtain consensus in a single AfD. They need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. One size fits all does not work here, per editor comments above. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 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.