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. WP:NSPORTS establishes only a presumption of notability, which can be rebutted if people look for and do not find substantial coverage, as in this AfD. The "keep" opinions, which limit themselves to pointing to NSPORTS and do not address the sourcing situation, must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 07:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Lawrey (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)

Meets WP:NRUGBY due to playing in one of the two rugby teams that competed at the 1908 Olympics (making this article unsuitable for a prod) but fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, similar to the recently deleted A. Wilcocks.

It is unlikely that significant coverage will be found, due to us not knowing his first name, date of birth, or date of death, and due to Olympedia finishing a single paragraph of coverage on him with the statement "Nothing more is known about Lawry’s life." BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack adequate sourcing to show noltability. When you are on a team that comes in second out of 2 teams in a competition, the fact that you are given a "silver medal" is not really a sign of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Won a silver medal, so passes the updated WP:NOLY guidelines. At worst it should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics as a valid WP:ATD to preserve the article history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were only 2 teams in the competition. Calling someone on the loosing team in a 2 team competition a medalist seems to be an abuse of the term. Plus you are ignoring the clear langauge on sports SNGs that they do not allow us to keep articles in the face of not meeting GNG, a view that was affirmed at an RfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, which states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." The criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS, as currently written, are part of that and Lawry is a medalist. If the criteria changes, then the issue can be revisited. Attempts to get around this resemble WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than following the intent of the policy. Additionally, I have added at least some basic biographical data, including his first name, 71although a proper page move can wait to see if this kept. Canadian Paul 07:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSPORT requires GNG to be met. It's not sufficient to !vote "Keep, meets NOLYMPICS", you need to provide WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep having won an Olympic medal, and new information about the subject has been found, including their full name and dates of birth/death. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The medal was to the team, not to individuals. Also there were only 2 teams in the competition, so it is hard to say coming in second constitutes winning a medal. Also pre-WWI it is highly questionable that the Olympics received enough coverage that we can assume anyone is notable just for winning a medal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no I in team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so being a part of a team should not gaurantee articles on all members of the team.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point, Lambert. Without the individuals, there would be no team... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:N makes it clear that an article only has to meet either WP:GNG or an SNG to be presumed notable. As WP:N is our principle notability guideline, that feels like the appropriate page to follow. NemesisAT (talk) 19:55, 15 February 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.