Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory McDermott

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. ✗plicit 04:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McDermott

[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)

As a non-medalling Olympian, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in the article and none could be identified in a WP:BEFORE search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this and this. At worst, redirect to Equestrian at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Individual jumping, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Horse Magazine entry is not significant coverage, and while the Equestrian Life entry might be, it is only a single example when we require WP:THREE, and the fact that it focuses on McDermott's son, rather than McDermott, suggests that might not constitute significant coverage of McDermott. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE is an essay. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient here to support GNG and allow some depth to be added to much more than a stub, including at least one detailed bio. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Google Search. Could you provide specific examples? BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It is a trimmed search to make it easy for people to find specifically relevant sources. There is this bio at third top (on my results), for example. There is sufficient in the results to provide some depth as to the subject's history and career over a number of decades. See WP:NEXIST Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few short mentions in extremely niche publications is not enough to show notability. We decided that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. I am just not convinced that niche equstrian pulications are enough. Maybe the 2nd soruce, but the first source is also too short to count as passing the in depth coverage of GNG, so even if we accept niche equestrian publications as enough, we only have at best one GNG meeting source, and GNG requires multiple sources that are in depth and meet all its other prongs, so the one truly in-depth source is not enough to pass GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since yesterday, the article has been expanded by the excellent work by Hack. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The expanded article now passes the GNG bar. The coverage from The Canbera Times and the two-part profile in The Horse Magazine have the kind of depth that is needed. And thanks to User:Hack for the improvements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No outstanding issues. Deb (talk) 12:21, 27 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.