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 redirect to Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird. per consensus. I'm really not sure why we're here. {u|Lugnuts}} you reverted the redirect, only to !vote redirect? Star Mississippi 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Riedl[edit]

Hans Riedl (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)

There is no evidence of notability. We lack any significant coverge. Searches have shown up no additional sources. Does not even come close to meeting our inclusion criteria for Olympians, which even if met is not a gaurantee of an article, the sports notability criteria make it clear that we need the subject to pass GNG to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird - WP:ATD applies, as it does to all other attempted Olympic deletions. Ingratis (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, and I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently likely search term for a redirect to be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the name of any Olympian, medal-winning or not, is a plausible search term.Ingratis (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of plausible search terms; every name on this list, for example. However, not all of them are sufficiently plausible for a redirect to be useful, compared to the chance of confusing readers who are searching for similarly non-notable people. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison is not an accurate one. For the rest, it doesn't make much sense, but whatever you are saying doesn't seem to be covered by WP:R#DELETE and WP:ATD-R. For good measure I'll throw in WP:CHEAP (Yes, I know it's an essay, but it's a sensible one) and WP:ATD. Also, WP:R#KEEP, of which para 5 reads: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." I find redirects from articles on non-medalling Olympians useful, and if I do, doubtless other readers will. Ingratis (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is; can you explain why you disagree. And my position isn't that it won't be useful to individuals searching for the athlete, it is that it will cause issues for people who are not searching for the athlete, such as those searching for Peter Hans Riedl. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I disagree because I see a significant difference between people who have never had articles and this, where there has been an article for years, so I think it desirable and helpful to leave a trail to it, now that there has been a change of wind direction inside the small inward-looking world that is too often Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying the other point but it still makes no sense to me. I don't see any danger at all that anyone will confuse an Austrian sportsman called Hans born in 1911 with a German local politician in 2009 called Peter Hans, even if they do share a surname. If this were a real danger, however, then redirecting this article to the correct place would remove the confusion, not add to it. I can only repeat the links above, especially WP:ATD. I don't think I can say much more on the subject. Ingratis (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing a grandfather clause in Wikipedia where because one editor mass created a bunch of sub-stub articles we permanently give this some meaning and precedent. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the fact that someone bothered creating an article on Wikipedia does not in any way indicate the subject is in any way notable, and should not be used as a major way of how we judge the notability of a subject, or the primary subject associated with a particular name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD - there is no good reason here not to have a redirect. For the rest, I don't see it that way - I think Wikipedia should maintain some semblance of consistency - but I'm not prepared to extend this discussion any further, as it's already several times the length of the article. Ingratis (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will add a bit more: this is an aspect of WP:SURPRISE, that if an article has been up for a long time, removing it without trace is baffling and inexplicable, not to mention bloody annoying, to a reader who has previously referred to it. (But who cares about readers so long as the editors are having fun.) Also, while it wouldn't be true to say that Wikipedian notability (as opposed to actual notability) changes with the weather, it does change, and these stubs have only recently been declared non-notable and double-plus-ungood, and your seemingly intense desire to eradicate them down to deleting them even as redirects, when viable redirect targets exist, as here, is unhelpfully revisionist. But WP:ATD is what principally counts. Ingratis (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Ingratis, WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I don't know why JPL's original redirect was reverted. Perfectly legitimate and standard WP:ATD-R. czar 01:20, 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.