Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Fago

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 Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Fago

[edit]

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

Giuseppe Fago (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)

Fago did not medal in the Olympics, so does not meet inclusion criteria. We lack sources that provide significant coverage, just a brief mention in what amounts to a sports table. A search for more sources turned up no instances of substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another day, another AfD from Lambert. If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Lugnuts. Rlink2 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I highly object to this being called a "revenge AfD". There is no grounds for this. There are no significant sources being shown. There has been a determination that Olympians are not notable. Calling this a "revenge AfD" is clearly out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My nomination yesterday for deletion was an article on a non-Olympian that was not ever edited by the editor who things this is a "revenge" nomination. I am finding these articles by literrally going back through Wikipedia birth categories having started in 1927. I generally basically chose the low sourced article that I come across at about the time of day when it is 24-hours from my last deletion nomination, although some like Bell I have been working on for longer and post to my talk page first to see if anyone notices anything. I think today this was the second Olympian I did a deep dive into I found some passing inclusion of his name in books, nothing that was truly indepth, but it brought up some issues that were going to take further analysis, so I decided to think on that person for the time being. So then I came to this person and did multiple searches and found no addtional sources, so I brought the article to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnpacklambert: Just to chip in if I may - I did acknowledge on the Bell nom that you showed evidence of some research there first, which is fair enough, but I have previously encouraged you (and anyone else for that matter) to seek out a wiki subscription to historic newspaper archives, where eligible. It may save a lot of ill feeling when it comes to AfD nominations. With regards to this AfD, as it is likely anything of note is non-English, it is very hard to ascertain notability one way or another. I think a redirect may be the best outcome possible here and maybe a consideration for non-notable Olympians moving forward. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 20+ nominations on my talkpage in recent months would suggest otherwise, Lambert. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I would agree; if editors wish to accuse John Pack Lambert of behavioural issues the correct place to do so is at WP:ANI, and to do so here is to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I found this, but it unfortunately does not add to what we know about Fago. No evidence found he otherwise led a notable life so a redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle would be most helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, if not kept, to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE etc. No reason not to redirect. Ingratis (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Sportsmen are not inherently notable, nor do they get exemptions from the general policy on non-notable people. The target article suggested has, predictably, no coverage whatsoever, so redirecting there would not be helpful to anybody seeking further information, and this seems like a rather unlikely search term ([1]) anyways (so would rather obviously fail WP:RPURPOSE, and copy-pasted vague waves about WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE etc. are not convincing counter-arguments). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on redirecting: No comment on notability - if there are sources, fine. As for redirecting, however, RandomCanadian's comments above are inaccurate:
      • The suggested target article, far from containing "no coverage whatsoever", has detailed information on all performances in this Olympic event including Fago's, which even if not independently notable makes up part of the event: it looks as though RC didn't check it.
      • On page views, the link provided makes it clear that this name IS a search term in use, even if not a particularly frequent one: Olympic competitors are subjects of interest, whether or not certain Wikipedia factions are prepared to accept it.
      • Similarly, WP:RPURPOSE, contrary to RC's claim, specifically includes "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" as one of the reasons for having a redirect, and there is in fact a specific redirect template for precisely these circumstances: {{R to list entry}}.
      • As for "copy-pasted vague waves", the idea is to save time, on the assumption that other editors are familiar with the acronyms or if not, will take the trouble to look them up. Should neither be the case, then here you go: (a) WP:ATD-R - "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." - "inappropriate" links to WP:R#DELETE, which lists the reasons not to have a redirect, none of which apply here. (b) WP:PRESERVE includes redirection as a preferable alternative to hard deletion. (c) WP:R#KEEP, as referred to above, gives reasons for keeping redirects, including "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article", which would be achieved by {{R to list entry}}. (d) WP:CHEAP = WP:Redirects are cheap - i.e., there is no reason not to have them unless they are actively harmful - back to WP:R#DELETE. (e) I'll add WP:HARMFUL (see? a new one), which says: "if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here")." (my bolding). "Quite some time" is not further defined, but the article on Fago has been in existence for almost two years, and as far as I'm concerned that fits well enough. Ingratis (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • What your comment lacks in concision it also lacks in accuracy. The suggested target articles contains no coverage whatsoever about this person. A listing in a stats table is not "coverage about this person". It's a listing in a stats table, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a stats database. If the only "coverage" we have is a trivial mention in a stats table, that is equivalent to "no coverage whatsoever". Thus, everything that has to do with this being a "sub-topic" of that page is also irrelevant, because somebody who participated in an event is not a "sub-topic" of that event. We don't usually have redirects about non-notable people unless there is substantial coverage (like, you know, actual prose) of them in the relevant article. Sportsmen are not an exception to that, and simply because somebody bothered scraping a database one day in the not-so-distant past doesn't give sportsmen an exemption from that, and the redirect being cheap or not harmful (actually, it is, as it misleads the reader into thinking there is some coverage about this person when in fact there is none) are not good arguments against that. An example where a redirect for a non-notable person is appropriate (totally unrelated) is Klaas Meurs, whose actions or lack of may have contributed to this (although he is otherwise entirely not-notable). This is clearly not such a case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and for page views, what the links shows is A) a few spikes when the page was edited (which does not in any way indicate that it is a "likely search term", just that someone edited the page - the way the tool works, that's going to generate a few "page views") and B) an occasional click, but averaging far less than one per day (in fact, the average is close to one per week) - at best, maybe somebody clicked on the link from any of the pages this is linked from. On top of that, comparing user vs. automated traffic (generally, a page which is an actual plausible search term will get a significant proportion of user traffic - that is not the case here) gives a good clue that, in fact, this page is really an unlikely search term... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Low use =/= no use. But the main reason for keeping a redirect is as stated in WP:REDIRECT, i.e. (in summary) that a redirect is likely to be useful to readers and there is no reason not to have it unless it is actively harmful, as defined - and despite your claim otherwise, this one would not be, because it falls within {{R to list entry}} - all of which is already said but disregarded. You are misapplying WP:NOTSTATS - it does not cover all statistics or specify anything to do with those relating to sports performance; and a record of performance detail in a notable sports event = coverage, whether expressed in statistical or prose form. You are making very heavy weather over a redirect. Ingratis (talk) 05:47, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giuseppe_Fago&oldid=1090274539"