Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Willock

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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Willock

[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)

Doesn't seem notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does seam notable as the cyclist competed in the 1984 Summer Olympics. And 'Sports Reference' is a reliable source which is uses in this article.A.A Prinon (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "doesn't seem notable" is not a valid reason for deletion, and the "no reliable sources" is not true either. He competed at the Olympics, so per WP:NOLY meets the notabilty requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Lugnuts. I'd really like to see this article expanded, and I feel a lot of similar ones would do better as list entries than separate articles. (It occurs to me that certain interpretations of "Wikipedia is not a sporting statistics directory" might weaken, rather than improve, our articles.) Still, as notability guidelines are written it does indeed seem notable, and I have to assume any given Olympic athlete has at least the hometown newspaper coverage to add some detail. (Maybe I'll fire up newspapers.com.) Vaticidalprophet 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be a decent amount of coverage in Newspapers.com which I'll try to fish through in the next couple of days. We shouldn't be presuming that people aren't notable simply because Google doesn't turn up much about them- especially if they're from the pre-Internet era. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in shock. This article on an olympian has multiple sources. That is very rare for such articles. Having read through all the biographies of all people in 1926-1928 births, and many in 1925 and 1929 births, plus all in 1940 births, I have encountered so many artilces on olympians with one source that it shocks me to see multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As promised, I have added many more sources from Newspapers.com archive. [1] and [2] in particular are whole articles dedicated to him. Sure there will be way more information in newspapers not available online (Newspapers.com only seems to have about 3 Canadian newspapers with archives in this time period). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:19, 16 April 2021 (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.