Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Walker (fencer)

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. Overwhelming early consensus to keep the article as well as a nom withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Walker (fencer)

[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)

No evidence of any notability found. A redirect to Fencing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Women's foil was reverted, so an AfD can decide what to do. The only source we have is the very short bio at Olympedia[1]. Looking for more information didn't reveal a single source. At the time Walker was active, women's fencing was hardly a popular sport, and it looks as if she got little to no attention. I'm happy to change my position if better sources are presented! Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our new guidelines in place I believe since last October are quite clear, unless someone medals at the Olympics they are not default notable for that. The sourcing here is a very expansive source of the type that our guidelines explicitly state does not lead towards passing GNG. Searches have not identified other sources. This is a clear case of an article that does not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two-time national champion and the vice-chair person of nationals sports' body. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep British Champion - so national champion (twice!), is surely notable? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on our own determination of what level of sports success makes someone notable, it is supposed to be built on comprehensive secondary sources. Even if the one added source is in-depth enough to pass GNG, which I cannot tell for sure when the whole reference to the subject is on one page, GNG requires multiple sources, and that has not been met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that she was a national champion and also a member of the governing body, I'd be very surprised if there aren't many more sources to be found off-line. pburka (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no less notable than the many sportspersons articles already on Wikipedia and has three sources so meets WP:GNG. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

has three sources so meets WP:GNG ??? Two of the three sources are generic database entries. They don't contribute to significant coverage, Skyerise. Silver seren^C 19:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:I find people who continually argue their case against every opposing !vote to be annoying and overzealous. Don't expect any change in my !vote because you choose to pester everyone who disagrees with you. Skyerise (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are an old database which is no longer active, and the successor site of that same database, so in fact the same source. And the third source reads in total "Alice Walker (no age given)"... Fram (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Same goes for you. See above. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this was my only reply to any keep vote here, in this discussion, your post hardly applies. If you don't want your opinion to be the subject of discussion and criticism, then please don't bother posting. Fram (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. State your case in your own !vote. If you have more to say, add it to your !vote. In the future, all comments placed under my !vote will be moved out to first level with Comment prepended. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Skyerise, but that is not how AFD discussions are conducted and formatted. See WP:AFDFORMAT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where it says "If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section." Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: No, where it says "If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say I can't move it after they put it there. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as was done before the revert. I have sympathy for the "sources are likely to be offline, not online" argument, but that in itself isn't a reasonable argument in favour of keep, especially when the article is a stub with such an obvious redirect target. If someone finds those offline sources in the future, they can then easily restart the standalone for her. For anyone motivated to do a deeper dig for sources, I'd like to point out that (at least according to our own article on it), the 1924 Summer Olympics was the first women's Olympic fencing competition. A book on the history of Olympic women's fencing might have useful details that aren't coming up just by looking for her name. (The book currently cited in the article is just a passing mention.) The other keep arguments are either not based on policy at all or appear to misunderstand WP:GNG's requirement of significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks solved, so keep it is. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Redirect~~ Keep As what is stated in WP:NSPORTS, presumed notability to meeting the WP:GNG (the only notability requirement that actually matters) only remain presumed so long as it isn't actively challenged. I am challenging that presumption now. If significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can't be found after an exhaustive search for said sources, then the presumption of notability is lost. As a national champion, you should be able to easily actually showcase those sources, right? Unless being a national champion at that time is not something that anyone in the media or other sourced coverage actually cared about, which would in itself then denote non-notability. I'm fully open to changing my vote here if proper source coverage can be found and presented. Otherwise, the closing admin should ignore any claims about presumed notability, as that isn't a proper keep argument. Silver seren^C 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I just wanted sources to be found and they have been. Good job, changing my vote. Silver seren^C 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some significant coverage in several newspapers (via British Newspaper Archive) and have expanded the article accordingly with some biographical details. Note: since other sources do little more than confirm what is already cited, I haven't added them as I don't find refboming particularly helpful. Anyway, seems like there is enough to pass GNG here, and I'd also say it's probable that further coverage exists with more additional information. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wjemather, do any of those other sources cover the material that's currently being cited with Olympedia and Sports-Reference? Since those two aren't very good sources at all and would be best replaced with proper news articles if you have them for that material. Silver seren^C 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot anything, but that could be due to my fairly restrictive search parameters. I'll look again when I get more time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any reasonable person would surely guess that the article's pre-nomination state, with only database sources, was that way only because of the difficulty of searching for 100-year-old news coverage of her accomplishments and not because of the nonexistence of sources. And that has now been borne out by the addition of better sources to the article. Also-competed at the Olympics may no longer be cause for automatic notability, but it is also not a reason for deletion when there is coverage of her efforts there and where she had other significant accomplishments including two-time national champion. Now that sourcing of those accomplishments has been found, there is no longer any excuse for this nomination to proceed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book 'A Proper Spectacle: Women Olympians 1900 to 1936'^[1] also provides details and a team photo of the four women on the 1924 British fencing team. Citation is now in the text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Daniels, Stephanie (2000). 'A proper spectacle' : women Olympians 1900-1936. Internet Archive. Houghton Conquest, Bedforshire : ZeNaNA Press ; Petersham, NSW : Walla Walla Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-9537645-0-1.

Keep, I think it's likely there is sufficient coverage on the British Newspaper Archive to satisfy the necessary criteria here. Very little on newspapers.com and the like which I guess isn't too unexpected, given they are more suited (but not exclusively) for non-England coverage. I have changed the ref to BNA template, added preview links to verify the sources and found an additional mention of a competition win which I added. I don't have subscription access to BNA so can't easily find further info. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw with thanks to those who found the British newspaper coverage. I can't close this (still a delete vote, plus too complicated to do while mobile editing). Fram (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to everyone for helping with sourcing here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 14 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.

[1] Daniels, Stephanie (2000). 'A proper spectacle' : women Olympians 1900-1936. Internet Archive. Houghton Conquest, Bedforshire : ZeNaNA Press ; Petersham, NSW : Walla Walla Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-9537645-0-1.

[1]