Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Argentin

Raymond Argentin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Raymond Argentin (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:GNG through lack of significant coverage; none is provided in the article and none was discovered in a WP:BEFORE search, which included a search of Gallica.

There is a minor description of him in his Olympedia entry, but it doesn't appear to constitute significant coverage, being limited to a summary of his competition history.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete The only sources that have been identified are truly comprehensive databases of all Olympians. We have ruled that only medalists are default notable for participation in the Olympics, so unless we can find sources that would constitute passing GNG this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong keep – I've expanded the article using sources from Google. There is still room for further expansion. Important to note that Argentin wasn't just a one-time Olympian who finished in 4th place, he was the national champion in his sport. For that reason, I believe he comfortably passes notability guidelines. I will continue to look for sources, but I imagine he will get several expansive write-ups upon his death, which will easily bulk up his article beyond its current state. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep This looks like a WP:BEFORE-fail. Schwede66 20:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @Schwede66: I've reviewed the sources, and none of them constitute significant coverage. The independent coverage in Alpes and Midi of Argentin consists of a single paragraph of statistical information Raymond Argentin was born in 1924 in Champigny/Marne. In 1948, at the age of 24, he was selected to compete in the London Games in canoe kayak 1 place over 10,000 m. Entered the French team that year he remained there until 1950. In 48 he won his 1st French Championship, which he won 3 times, in 1,000 m, in 1949, he won the 1,000 and 10,000 m. This athlete progressed quickly because he did not discover single-seater canoeing until 1942, while the coverage in le Courrier du Pay de Retz is just An association that constitutes the living memory of the discipline, whose oldest member is Raymond Argentin, who made 4e at the London Olympics in 1948, and the most recent Tony Estanguet. Sports Reference and Olympedia are databases, while "List of Oldest Living Olympians" appears to both be an unreliable source and its coverage of him, being a list entry, is not significant. Finally, "The 1948 Olympics: How London Rescued the Games" consists of a single line where Argentin's result in the Canadian singles 10,000 metres is listed, which is again not significant. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Accomplishments (national championship victories and international tournaments) suggest that there would be sufficient contemporary reports on this individual if we had access to French sources of the period. While notability is not based on theoretical sources, those that have been provided thus far should be sufficient to keep the article. Canadian Paul 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources, which appears to be what you are arguing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment – rather conveniently, you've chosen to ignore the fact, pointed out by CP and myself, that this individual wasn't just a 4th place Olympian, but indeed a national champion in their respective sport, rendering your WP:NOLYMPICS argument redundant... --Jkaharper (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

They might have been a national champion, but that doesn't establish notability or even the presumption of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, per Jkaharper and Canadian Paul. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the source assessment above. A semi-interview in a local magazine is not particularly compelling as SIGCOV, and we would need multiple such sources anyway. I'd also note that primary sources should only be used to support uncontroversial facts, so material from an interview, unless covered elsewhere, should be extremely limited in a biography as it has not been demonstrated to be DUE and encyclopedic. The "oldest living Olympians" ref is a statistical database, and absent sources discussing it, his "being real old" is also not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite not medaliing in the Olympics, Argentin did compete in the Olympics. Thanks to contributor Jkaharper for finding out more information and expanding it on the French canoeist. Chris (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep appears to pass WP:V. Article has been expanded significantly since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note however that it hasn't been expanded since I last reviewed the sources available and quoted all the independent coverage there was of this individual, with the exception of statistics. BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some numerical traction in favour of keeping the article, but the charge that the subject does not meet GNG has not yet been refuted convincingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)