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 delete. Redirects are cheap, but there is no consensus for one here. Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gösta Grandin

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

Gösta Grandin (  | 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)

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Grandin not only didn't medal -- he was actually disqualified from the event. See Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete olympic competitors are no longer considered to be default notable unless they were medalists. There are no sources here which would add at all to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Noise
The notion that I am a "proxy" for JPL is absurd. I've historically disagreed with JPL far more often than not at AfD. Indeed, just last year, I took JPL to ANI over his AfD nominations. This contention is pure smoke and mirrors to avoid focusing on an AfD that is clearly meritorious. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. Lambert adds to his blog, sorry talkpage, about the notability of a subject, and then you send it to AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Shame on you for making such baseless claims in desperate defense of your insupportable sub-stub. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The links above show that it is the case that I've stated. Unless, of course, you didn't post on Lambert's talkpage about this article and its AfD. Oh, wait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope. JPL posted about another one of your insupportable Olympic sub-stubs which led me to Grandin which I independently reviewed and found to be sorely and completely lacking. ... Curious whether you have anything to say about the substance of the AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes. The discussion with you on Lambert's talkpage show this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Any SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
You did absolutely nothing wrong here, JPL. This is pure strategy on the part of Lugnuts to try to divert the focus of the discussion. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Apart from get you to proxy AfD for him, yep nothing wrong at all! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
How in the world did JPL proxy me to AfD an article he never even mentioned??? Oh... and still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Still no SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The link to another user's comments above were when I posted an ask on that user's talk page to see if he would look into nominating an article for deletion. Which he did not. That is very different than someone seeing a notice on something that I posted to my talk page. Which is in turn different from someone seeing a notice on something on my talk page and then going to look even further into the matter on their own and finding other articles that they do not think are at all notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk - no evidence of passing GNG presented, and it might as well redirect to the article for the sole Olympics event he participated in. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Do we really want redirects to people who were disqualified from the event? If we redirect every article that we have on a person who participated in the Olympics who does not meet notability guidelines, a category like Category:1912 births will end up being about a quarter redirects to various Olympic pages. At present only about 0.5% of that category consists of redirects. Actually it may be closer to 0.25%. It does not even average one redirect for every page of 200 articles in the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Switching to delete per other comments; we shouldn't be mirroring Olympedia and those looking for this obscure figure will be better served at a site like that. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I'm not seeing any SIGCOV either, and I agree with JPL that nearly a century on, it's an unlikely search term. Ravenswing 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Worth noting - a vote (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC ( talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, GNG is not always enough. There is a way to read GNG that would cause 100% of candidates for US house to pass it, and a very large percentage of candidates for state legislature, at least in states other than New Hampshire (New Hampshire has a very large legislature, I think the largest in the US, and yet it has about a 25th the size the population of California), to pass it. So there are clearly cases where theoretically passing GNG is not enough. Anyway no one here has claimed at all that there is any source that in any way would add towards this individual passing GNG, so it is a mute point. To be fair we have not yet done much analysis on what type of sources on non-medaling Olympians may or may not add towards passing GNG, this is in part because well over 50% of our articles on Olympians, at least among those before 1960, have only 1 source, and it is one of the sources here that we have ruled in no way can even be used to add towards passing GNG. Not one of the sources on this particular article would add towards passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:58, 25 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gösta_Grandin&oldid=1073182602"