Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Hutcheon

Hazel Hutcheon[edit]

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hazel Hutcheon (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)

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability and citation. This is a stub with only one source...that the human being exists. -Markeer 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources here and here. At worst, redirect to Great Britain at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Alpine skiing, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirecttoList of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That list now exists. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!vote amended. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-medaling Olympians are not considered default notable and the sources we have in the article and that have been identified in this discussion are no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. As fun as it was to go digging to find information on her, the resources available online do not support keeping this article. Seems a shame as I suspect there are hard copies of stories about her that we simply cannot access. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. National champion in her event. Sources look okay to me. Deb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deb: Consensus has long established that GNG has to be met when the (often very weak) presumption of notability offered by NSPORTS is challenged. As such, please can you clarify exactly what significant coverage you are seeing in these sources that would meet GNG? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wjemather:Are you disputing that she was national champion? Deb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Deb: No (btw, it was me who added that information to the article), I am disputing that there is significant coverage in the sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Wjemather: She fulfils the criteria for an assumption of notability as defined in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running. Deb (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Deb: Aside from being a skier, not a track and field athlete... such a claim would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion but at AFD, any NSPORTS-based presumption (not assumption) of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Wjemather: Sorry about those typos, but, regardless of the sport, your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure where your zeal for deleting national sporting champions comes from, but that's my position. The claim is sufficient because it is backed by reliable sources. There don't need to be hordes of articles and books. Deb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • See WP:NSPORT/FAQ. Additionally, countless discussions at N, NSPORT and VP, and AFDs, indicate that your position is at odds with community consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Deb Along with the FAQs, the first sentence of NSPORT situates it as a predictor of GNG, the Applicable policies and guidelines section reiterates the GNG requirement, and SPORTCRIT also requires SIGCOV in multiple RS. That NSPORT is subordinate to GNG was the intent of NSPORT from the start, and was reaffirmed in a large RfC in 2017 as well as in hundreds of AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • • As a national champion, she meets the notability criteria. Why would you want to delete an article about a person whose notability has been verified by reliable sources? Deb (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This is a fallacy. The RS we have only verify her achievements, which does not equate to verifying notability; significant coverage (of the subject) in secondary reliable sources is required to verify notability, but we don't appear to have any. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This is a fallacy. There is a presumption of notability for national champions and the fact that she is one is verifiable. Deb (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Actually, no, there is no presumption of notability for national champions in skiing. Cbl62 (talk) 13:50, 29 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.