Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addin Tyldesley

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addin Tyldesley[edit]

[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)

Article fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The majority of the sources are mere passing mentions or statistics tables, and the bulk of the prose is simply statistics that have been written out as sentences. The Olympedia source is the most in-depth coverage that we have, but its own sourcing is unclear and in any case it's insufficient to establish notability on its own. –dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Olympics. –dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Olympedia piece strikes me as having enough depth to be WP:SIGCOV. Is it considered a reliable source? Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes. It gets its information from the same place as Sports-Reference used to get their Olympian data and according to Slate editing is "restricted to about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too concerned about Olympedia's reliability, but we do generally expect multiple SIGCOV sources to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I'd say there's a strong argument to keep here, based on existing sourcing and I think it's fair to say that there will be further sources in suitable paper-based newspaper archives. The breadth of sources here is beginning to paint an in-depth picture. So on balance I think we're probably fine keeping here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Blue Square Thing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 20+ sources for a swimmer from the late 1800's and early 1900's is easily WP:SIGCOV. There's also this - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zuZ0CjQRauw/UG9WB1ROagI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/jdo17iJLVaM/s1600/Addin_Tyldesley.jpg from http://www.tyldesley.co.uk/2012/09/, though it doesn't say when it was published so I didn't use it. I also do expect more to be out there given how much he was covered in the few resources we have.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary, non-independent wedding announcement.... JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay - No, not that. This - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zuZ0CjQRauw/UG9WB1ROagI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/jdo17iJLVaM/s1600/Addin_Tyldesley.jpg KatoKungLee (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Could be used if necessary with something like "unknown newspaper" as the credit. This firms up my suggestion of keep above but also suggests very, very strongly to me that when there's a half decent bit of biography in Olympia (a paragraph or two that go beyond sporting stuff) that there's almost certainly going to be further coverage to the extent that we can craft an article worth keeping. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per analysis by Blue Square Thing and SIGCOV found by KatoKungLee. JoelleJay's characterization of this as non-independent and primary is unequivocally wrong. Frank Anchor 15:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Informative article Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references exist. The person is notable. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2023 (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.