Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goffredo Lagger

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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. History under the redirect should sufficient sourcing eventually be IDed Star Mississippi 03:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goffredo Lagger (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)

Non-notable athlete. WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up third party sources to establish notability. With no medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics would also make sense as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrobek is now a redirect. Witkowski is less clear. In any event, see WP:WHATABOUT. Cbl62 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expanded the article. In any case, the biathlete has nothing less than the other biathletes participating in the olympic competition (this: Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics), whose "beautifully" pages remain. In my opinion, it should also be considered that the article is present in three other Wikipedias, even if I will be answered that in these the only Olympic participation is a sufficient requirement for the encyclopedicity but with us, after 15 years, this is no longer the case from today. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expansion efforts. However, WP:SPORTBASIC expressly states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." In this case, the sources you have added represent database sources rather than do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, the fact that stub articles may exist about Lagger on other Wikipedias (e.g., here) does not alter the need to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are wrong (you took a quick look and didn't stop). I added two authoritative sources, the first from a follow up site directed by an important journalist of Il Fatto Quotidiano (Clean Play - For those who really love sport) and the second even from the Fiamme Gialle website. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the two sources you are now highlighting may be significant coverage of the "military patrol" event (the proposed redirect target) but not of Lagger individually. They each contain only a single passing references to Lagger. Such passing references are the antithesis of WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 30 August 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.