Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist)

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 delete and redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's folding K-1 10000 metres. There is a clear consensus he doesn't pass GNG and deletion is the answer, but there is also some interest in redirecting (delete or not), so why not both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Lawton (canoeist)[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)

Lawton was not a medalists, and so does not pass notability that way. He did evidently win a canoeing competition in 1939, but my searching did not even give me a good context for what this competition was. My searching for sources turned up no additional sources. The two sources we have here are neither of the type that would constitute a passing of GNG, and GNG requires more sources than we have here to be passed anyway. Unless we have an article that I could not find about the canoeing competition he won, we should not redirect the article, because that was his highest profile sporting action, so if we do not keep the article it should be the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- >>I think people who refused a redirect should be forced to only vote keep or delete, and should not be allowed to again propose a redirect at AfD they opposed earlier. - That's nice. I think people should be free to change their minds and express whatever opinion they have. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did find this [1] which on page 164 mentions that Lawton's performance as the best for Britain in 1936, where he placed 8th, and mentions that he was going to be in attendance at the 1948 Olympics as an assistant to someone. It is a very passing mention, and I do not think enough to pass GNG, and even if it were, we would need more sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not enough RS here for GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British national champion. At worst, restore Lambert's redirect, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We still have zero SigCov. Also, I think people who refused a redirect should be forced to only vote keep or delete, and should not be allowed to again propose a redirect at AfD they opposed earlier. It also seems that Lugnuts is specifically targeting all my redirects for reversal while leaving others editors alone. Considering his recent admitted revenge creations of AfDs against articles I created, in which he failed to even notify me of the AfDs, he has shown a consistent pattern of gaming discussions that is being too often ignored. Wikipedia articles must be based on Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage. I also find it concerning that these redirects are being removed forcing us to go through this process at AFD when the person who removed the redirect was unable to find any indication of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I oppose keeping a redirect, as a disambiguated article is not a likely search term and thus not a useful redirect. 05:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. British champion, so would appear to be sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BilledMammal. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's folding K-1 10000 metres per JPL's original rationale. No evidence of notability, but WP:ATD still applies and it's an appropriate target. If JPL has concerns about Lugnuts' conduct, he can take it to WP:ANI - unless WP:G5 applies (which it clearly doesn't in this case) the conduct of the creating editor has no bearing on what should happen to the article. Smartyllama (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympics entry. Fails WP:NSPORT — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Lack of SIGCOV is a strong indicator a subject is not encyclopedic on its own. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't demonstrate notability. Avilich (talk) 16:19, 11 March 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.