Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Hutcheon

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 Great Britain at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Alpine skiing. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Since there's a plausible redirect target and the name is a plausible search term, redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Hutcheon

[edit]

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

Hazel Hutcheon (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 WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list now exists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote amended. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:06, 26 January 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/Hazel_Hutcheon&oldid=1255914891"