Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Anderson

Otto Anderson

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to those that found sources :D (non-admin closure) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

[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)

Fails NOLYMPICS and GNG. No SIGCOV could be found. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several hundred results for Otto Anderson on newspapers.com in the early-to-mid 1920s for his track and football career at USC and the Olympics. Among the highlights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Penale52 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, no need to redirect, per my above comment. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Penale52's research, I have expanded the article to incorporate key material from most of those references. I think it clearly meets GNG now.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per Penale52's search. Alvaldi (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, passes WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:15, 12 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.