Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gillow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. The discussion is evenly divided, and arguments on both sides, while veering into the speculative, are reasonable. Some doubt about whether a news clipping was genuine has been addressed. There remains disagreement over whether the current sources and the likelihood of further offline sourcing is sufficient. On the whole I find the arguments to redirect marginally stronger, given the nature and substance of the sourcing provided, but not sufficiently so to find a consensus to redirect. Given that the available sources changed over the course of this discussion, I am going to say this discussion does not preclude renomination at AfD in less than six months. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gillow

[edit]

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

David Gillow (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)

Unable to find SIGCOV through google searches under both name and "galloping" nickname. The newspapers on the back of his personal website, since I can't find the name of the newspaper, I can't WP:VERIFY them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Zimbabwe. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:NEXIST. The background of his website is literally clips of newspaper features on him. That you can't find them by searching Google proves that you cannot find all existing SIGCOV on the internet and there is often offline things to find. There is likely much more that exists, but knowing that there were at least four newspaper features on him per his pictures on his website is sufficient. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the subject's personal website does include newspaper clippings, we have no indication beyond the headlines what the articles are about or how much coverage was provided, thus WP:NEXIST is not applicable. As such, the WP:GNG is not met here with any WP:SIGCOV here or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's literally in the titles of the articles and they are several columns long! That clearly indicates SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily. It could be that the articles only mention Gillow only for a couple of sentences before covering other topics. We can't say for sure one way or the other. Let'srun (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When there is large pictures of him, he is in the title, and the first sentences are about him, assuming that it is not SIGCOV is completely ridiculous and implausible. We can use common sense. The chances that there is not SIGCOV of him is essentially nil. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. The sources may exist, but we have not verified them yet. Until we can verify, we can't do anything yet. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article is completely verifiable. We do not need to verify the specific newspaper of the SIGCOV that we know with 99.99% certainty is SIGCOV to allow for the article to be kept; deleting an article when we have SIGCOV because "well, we don't have the specific newspaper that SIGCOV was published in at the moment" is utterly ludicrous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If we cannot access the source, read it, and if we cannot verify that it is real and exists, we DON'T have the SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is obvious that the sources are real and that they cover him in detail... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No it's not. They're from his own website. We need to verify where these actually came from. Until then, either draftify or delete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Moreover, you're citing the subject himself. How do we know that the sources aren't just edited? Unless we can find the original paper in Zimbabwe, or plausibly Australia because the website looks like a com.au website, We need to be able to verify that the sources are actually real. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You seriously expect an Olympian to fabricate 1970s newspapers on himself to put on his website? That is completely implausible. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't cite primary sources on Wikipedia for the purposes of establish notability. We're not a research project the same way a high school, college or institution is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You actually can cite primary sources, and the newspapers aren't those. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't cite newspapers if we don't know where they came from, who wrote them, etc. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Except we can. We don't need to know the author for a newspaper to be usable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't even know which newspaper Gillow even appeared in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ultimately yes. But it certainly appears extremely likely that these articles exist. There's NORUSH - put a pin in it, and perhaps come back in a couple of decades once more archive materials are available online. Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOCOMMON. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And I find it quite frankly insulting for any editor to use it in AfD. Zimbabwe is not the United States, and it is not clear that the provided screenshots provide significant, independent coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The one with the photo has a sub-sub-headline that suggests that the article is more overall coverage of the event, which would be common for sports coverage. Here's an example, where the person in the title an in the accompanying photograph gets only four sentences, or about 1/4th of the article. Even if we accept that these are images of real newspapers, we do not know what papers they are, so we don't know if they are reliable sources, nor if they are multiple sources or but a single source. We cannot cite the newspapers because we don't know what they say beyond the headlines (at the resolution of the image, it would be at best a guess), and headlines are not reliable sources even in reliable source newspapers, so there is nothing to cite, and we wouldn't know what source to attribute even if we did. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point re: WP:HEADLINES being unreliable and not establishing WP:SIGCOV. Even if we could verify with certainty the authenticity of the headlines—which we cannot—that would be insufficient. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Headline content itself isn’t, is what policy says: but if we are asked to make a logical assumption on the article content based on the headline, the common sense assumption should be obvious. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a big leap from these grainy, unauthenticated photos of 2–4 newspaper clippings to "SIGCOV definitely exists". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a logical assumption if the only image that exists of the newspaper clippings is on a non-independent source, and all potential sources that we can search at least at the moment turn up nothing. We can't verify that, at least not yet, and to keep this kind of material online can potentially risk us spreading hoaxes at the most extreme interpretation Especially if he is living, then BLP would apply too (which we still are unsure of). I feel compelled to remind you that verifiability is one of the three core content policies, alongside RS and NOR, and that verification from a personal site, let alone one that isn't even online anymore and only accessible from the internet archive, is like saying "I have a billion dollars, source is trust me bro plz". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you on about mate? The known existence of these sources is being used to demonstrate notability, that's all we have to determine, if sources exist - we're not putting statements we can't verify into the article and nobody has suggested that. Just because you can't search to save your life doesn't make everything others turn up 'trust me bro plz'. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The known existence of these sources itself is in question. If we can't verify that these even exist by referring to the original paper, nor have any of our paper searches yet turned up the exact headline, on top of the lack of a name for the newspaper, and all we have to go on is a grainy photograph from a no-longer-online website, we can't even verify that the sources which are supposedly demonstrating notability exist, or are being used out of context. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NEXIST - we know sources exist, even if we can't access them. I'd agree with Beanie that to see an article with a headline mentioning the subject's name and first sentences discussing him, and assert that the article could just contain a passing mention is nothing more than wilful lack of common sense. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with Kingsif's reasoning for supporting BeanieFan11. Source verifiability does not mean that a source has to be able to be verified by a specific person or group of people, but that it is indeed possible for someone to verify the existence and quality of the source. For instance, if a database listed the last surviving copies of a referenced print resource to be in a local library in rural Kazakhstan, the source cannot be assumed to be unverifiable just because no one in an AfD discussion is willing to buy a flight to Kazakhstan to check. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasonings above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the idea of a potential source only being mentioned on a subject's personal or non-RS website and so far not being locatable otherwise...I get the gut feeling that this might be best suited for a VPP discussion. I might start that if I feel like it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've started it at WP:VPP. Feel free to comment InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEXIST points to Wikipedia:Published, which states (emphasis included in the original):

    All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

    A source that no one is able to locate, whose existence and content cannot be verified by any editor cannot be used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accessible to at least some people? Well, that is the case here, given that someone put them online (to do so, it must have been accessible). The reason no editor has located them aside from the website listing them is because no editor has checked Zimbabwean newspaper archives, where the coverage is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Low res photos of newspaper clippings on a website that is non-independent or not otherwise considered a reliable source are insufficient. It is not accessible if no editor is able to locate to confirm their existence and contents. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The link you point to does not say we need an editor right now to verify all the citation details, only that it needs to be accessible to someone, which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone independent of the article subject and independent of the website, which is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Published#Accessible goes on to say A source is considered accessible if it is available to the public to review in some manner and provides further discussion and definition. Perhaps one of the WikiProjects tagged on Talk:David Gillow or Wikipedia:Reference desk can help identify sources to establish SIGCOV and improve the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to check but failed to find any online archives which I have access to for Zimbabwean archives. Plus, if his personal website is hosted in Australia, why not search Australian archives like we did, and that also turned up no results? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      His career appears to have taken place in Zimbabwe, while it seems he later moved to Australia. The newspapers are likely Zimbabwean, and thus would be found in offline Zimbabwean archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless, the fact that a self-published, promotional source mentions or shows snippets of what might be such sources is not sufficient on its own to satisfy NEXIST. A low-quality image of an unidentifiable newspaper clipping on a personal website falls short of your WP:ONUS. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage clearly exists. This seems to be a classic case of systematic bias because the coverage seems to have occurred in print media in a country that does not have a well developed online media archive. Number 57 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RGW InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out systematic bias that comes from a disregard for print media is not WP:RGW. Ike Lek (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But relying on inaccessible, unauthenticated sources whose existence is only suggested by a single unusable source to correct for systematic bias is RGW. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see the arguments to delete as substantially stronger, given that the existence of sources is inferred from the subject's personal website, but in light of the DRV this could benefit from another week's discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEXIST unless the clippings are actually found we don’t have any sources for notability and it will likely get deleted. 8bit12man (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AWF's thorough analysis and per SPORTCRIT, which requires an IRS SIGCOV source be cited. JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Zimbabwe. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as an appropriate outcome for individuals who participate in an Olympics until we can verify where the articles came from.--Enos733 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's certainly clear from the photograph that sources do exist. There's WP:NORUSH. Once we have extensive archives available from this country we can revisit this. In a couple of decades or so. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if these sources do indeed exist, just based on these illegible clippings, how is one meant to verify their independence, their reliability and their contents? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious what these non-independent 1970s [s]Australian[/s] newspapers could be, can you list some examples? There's nothing in the article that can't be sourced right now. And the contents - let's cross that bridge in a couple of decades. It's not like we don't have sources that confirm basic facts. Nfitz (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that they're Australian newspapers. Seems to me it is more likely they would be Zimbabwean. Even there, I can't see how you can be so confident they're not artist mockups given that we can't read the source or the content.
    I'm not sure what you are seeing that I'm not, but as far as I can tell there are only two validated facts on the page: first that he competed for Zimbabwe and second that his daughter competed for Australia. I assume that there might be an official Olympic source for his birthdate, but that's not offered on the page and I can't immediately find it.
    We don't need to "cross that bridge in decades", we can simply list this person as a competitor at an Olympic games in an appropriate list and as/when sources come available a more extensive page can be written.
    The reality is that according to the only available information presented and that anyone can offer, he didn't finish in the Olympics in 1980. I'm not seeing anything about an extensive cycling career to suggest that he was a "top African athlete" as some have suggested. JMWt (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. At the very least, the fact that editors do not agree on whether the photo is authentic and that those who think it is reach different conclusions about the newspapers' origins shows this is far from "clear". The guidance at WP:NORUSH calls for at least establishing the basis of the content and its significance before creating an article. Not rushing to delete a stub when there is evidence, or at least a strong suggestion, that WP:SIGCOV exists is a reasonable practice. The problem is that we have not established that and after a month of discussion none has been identified for David Gillow. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick glance at that image by anyone who deals with a lot of historic newspapers, @Myceteae, they'd easily conclude the picture is likely authentic. The extreme effort necessary to fake something like that, and nail the layouts, fonts, and phrasing of that time in my opinion, makes such theories unnparsimonious. (other than that, @JMWt's comments do raise good questions, I think.) Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good questions, @JMWt. Yes, they would be Zimbabwe newspapers - I believe he lives in Australia now, and with the Australian website, I goofed. With the 1970s date, most are probably Rhodesian. If you look at our page for the race - most racers did not finish. Down below someone provided a 1980 Rhodesia Herald, which is in detail, and discusses his career. It's seems very unlikely to me that picture would be a "mock-up", or even complete, given I can't see the 1980 article. What we see here is a lack of digitized sources from Africa (which does make more sense than Australia - which was starting to concern me!). I've taken the unusual step of adding that 1980 article, and some other references, to the article. Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zimbabwe at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling – As WP:ATD. I hadn't voted before, but this discussion got out of hand for something quite obvious. In the future, if more sources are gathered, the article may be reinstated. Svartner (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNXFRXoWEAAf982?format=jpg&name=900x900 – Ike Lek (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How'd you find that Ike Lek? Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through a lot of old social media posts until I found it posted by a relative. Supposably a cousin of Gillow's found the page. I wouldn't cite it without first getting a physical copy, or at least a better pic, but I think the old pic at least proves that it exists. Ike Lek (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The pic looks fine to me. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow @Ike Lek. That's some good sleuthing! Bonus points for you! I've never seen that approach before! Nfitz (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm persuaded that the source offered above is a genuine newspaper clipping, I don't see that we need to argue about it any more. The question is whether there are other RS. There may be, but equally there may not be - in my country it is common for athletes who compete at Olympics to get a bit of coverage, unless they do really well it might only be a single article in a local newspaper. I don't know how it was in Harare in 1980 but for me nothing has changed. Either someone needs to get access to more sources or the page needs redirecting. Just like many of the other Olympic athletes who competed in olympic games but didn't get a medal. It seems to me that this is the basic requirements of WP:SPORTSCRIT. Maybe the subject was a hero in Harare, if that's the case then we need to see evidence of coverage that we can read in addition to the newspaper article above. JMWt (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt, SPORTSCRIT says that the article "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.". That has been met with the 1980 articles. It also requires multiple references - which we do have, including the independent secondary 2012 newspaper article. Seems to me that SPORTSCRIT is met without any additional sources other than the 6 8 already listed in the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either someone needs to get access to more sources or the page needs redirecting. Just like many of the other Olympic athletes who competed in olympic games but didn't get a medal. Agree --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't based on policy. Ike Lek (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SPORTSCRIT provides guidelines for presumed or likely notability, but makes it clear that having a single article does not guarantee notability when other criteria are not met. I have yet to see confirmation of verifiable, published, significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Nor have the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cycling been demonstrated, with published sources, to be met. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what about WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:GNG? Saying someone on Wikipedia needs to get access to a source for it to establish notability is not based on policy. "...an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Ike Lek (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone on Wikipedia needs to get access to a source for it to establish notability is not based on policy. We've discussed NPOSSIBLE aka NEXIST extensively here. It says (emphasis added) a subject is Likely (not 'definitely') notable when Multiple suitable sources that could be cited are known to exist. GNG says (emphasis added) multiple sources are generally expected. The content guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources states:

    Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Section: WP:REPUTABLE)

    And (emphasis included in the original):

    Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form…
    Additionally, an accessible copy of the media must exist. (Section: WP:PUBLISHED)

    The linked information page goes on to further define published and accessible, specifically (emphasis added):

    The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review and scrutinize the source. This is a requirement of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. (Section: Wikipedia:Published#Accessible)

    So far we have decent evidence of a single newspaper article. I find a Twitter photo posted by relative of the subject rather shaky, but others disagree and if we assume for the sake of argument that this is acceptable, we do still need multiple sources and they must be accessible, to someone, somewhere, in some form. Several editors have asserted repeatedly that we 'know' additional SIGCOV exists, that it is 'clear' and 'obvious' but to date we have not identified a second source with a date, author, publication, etc. We've identified places where we think such articles would be accessible—the physical archives in Harare and LexisNexis—if these sources exist but we in fact do not know if they exist. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why @Myceteae are you ignoring, as discussed above, that SPORTCRIT says the article "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, maybe you could tone it down a bit. I for one am fully willing to change my mind if the facts change.
    Second, you could quote another part of WP:SPORTSCRIT Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
    Meeting the GNG is not optional according to that.
    And as that says, it is fair to evaluate athletes of a similar era with similar characteristics. Do athletes from Harare who competed but didn't medal at the 1980 Olympics commonly meet the GNG? JMWt (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG must eventually be demonstrated, but only SPORTCRIT is necessary at this AFD. There is no fixed rule [on what is a reasonable amount of time], as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time. I can't tell the notability of other 1980 Zimbabweans, since I have zero access to Zimbabwean media of the time, though I'll note that in each country I do have 1980 newspaper access for (U.S. / Iceland / Canada / Hungary / Romania / Switzerland) the majority of subjects with similar accomplishments are GNG passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been in mainspace for a decade. How much longer are you proposing that it should be allowed to be there with imperfect sourcing? When are you planning to visit the Harare archives? Because there's no evidence that anyone else is likely to do so any time soon. JMWt (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of Wikipedia articles have "imperfect sourcing". This isn't Schrodinger's newspaper. Coverage exists whether or not any of us see it, and there is no requirement that it ever be added to the page. Subjects are notable, not articles. Ike Lek (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like you to show me that people with "similar accomplishments" have been through AfD as !keep please. A couple of pages on en.wiki would be great. They should be athletes that failed to finish in their event and had no evidence of international competition outside of a single Olympic games. JMWt (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's very few cyclists who "did not finish" who have been brought to AFD, but randomly looking at a few DNFs in the U.S. / Canada (since those are places I have newspaper access) in the same event across nearby years, Brian Chewter, Emile Waldteufel, Lindsay Gauld, Wes Wessberg and Yves Landry are all clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the Herald article does say Gillow competed in Mozambique and South Africa, so I don't think it is fair to say he did not compete in international competition. Ike Lek (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not ignoring this one line in SPORTCRIT, I am looking at various relevant policies and guidelines in totality here. I specifically addressed SPORTCRIT here. The line you keep quoting goes on to say: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Taken together with other P&G related to notability and verifiability, we do actually need to locate additional sources to establish notability. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually. GNG doesn't say that we should delete articles that don't yet have those two sources - and not only does SPORTCRIT suggest that such sources exist, we have some visual evidence that also indicates that such sources exist. Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a poor quality, largely illegible photo of news clippings from an archived personal website that do not identify the publication and that to date cannot be identified or located and are not mentioned or referenced in any other sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect: I'd say that there is enough here to warrant a Keep despite the entrenched delete !votes but in any case WP:ATD applies to this equally as to other Olympic competitor stubs where there are good reasons to expect further sources to come to light, so at the very least Redirect to Zimbabwe at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling until they do so. Ingratis (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting SPORTCRIT and per common sense. Albeit with difficulty, this AfD process and the relevant article's improvements ultimately demonstrated that the page is not a one-sentence permastub only sourced from a database but is expandable using secondary sources. I get that the sourcing situation is not optimal, but on the other hand I don't expect anything better given we're dealing with Zimbawean publications of ~45 years ago with no digital archives available whatsoever. I would likely be in the delete camp without the Herald article, but since it exists this seems just a WP:OFFLINE case. -Cavarrone 16:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not WP:RGW. Let'srun (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Shallow and inflammatory comment. Cavarrone 19:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't righting great wrongs. I don't think it's even close, @Let'srun. There's many, many more subjects who are article worthy, where we have zero references - if we were to start to creating (unverifiable) articles about them, and keep them, that would be RGW. SPORTCRIT has been met with existing sources, and multiple sources have been found to verify the contents of the article. We are down to the GNG guideline of two good sources, looking for a second good source, with actual evidence that such sources likely exist! I'm also concerned that the opposite is true. Surely the great wrong is that this guy may have only made the Olympics because he is white, and that Rhodesia had been under minority white-rule from the 1800s to just weeks before the 1980 Olympic selections. Unlike many African nations Rhodesia had (and Zimbabwe continues) to have a reputable press with newspaper archives available since the 1800s - but covering mostly whites. Righting the wrong would be to reject the article because of his white colonial privilege - especially given he literally fought a war to preserve white rule! Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that people have been arguing that there should be a lower standard because of the country the subject is from, I do stand by my statement. Of course, the much larger issue is the lack of SIGCOV besides the one source of questionable origination and independence. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was going to say exactly this. I don't want to make judgements on Gillow's individual beliefs or character, but he is a English-born "White Rhodesian" who came to Africa as part of British colonialism, and left after white minority rule ended in Zimbabwe. Having an article for him does nothing to "right great wrongs", it merely reflects that notability must be evaluated in the context of which a subject exists/existed when determining the likelihood of the existence of sources.
    Also, it is sad that someones has brought an argument here that "but he's white" is an effective counter to. Even if he weren't, this would still be an inappropriate place to cite WP:RGW. No one is trying to push an agenda by saying Gillow is a notable subject for an article.
    I do believe a lot of the imbalance in what Wikipedia does and does not have articles about (as opposed to biased POV within articles) reflects the systematic biases of published research, and not the individual bias of editors. Wikipedia is not for fighting systematic bias in what gets researched (although it should be addressed when it is meaningful and provable), but this very much falls into an area of individual-level bias. It is not "righting a great wrong" to say that just because there is less ease of accessibility for people from other countries to access sources from specific country does not mean they do not exist or are less reliable. It simply reflects an understanding of the limitations that come from the make-up of our community, and trying not to unnecessarily perpetuate the effects of those limitations. For instance, if a Malaysian editor cannot find sources about a subject in Malaysia, it is a stronger indicator that they may not exist than if that same Malaysian editor cannot find sources about a subject in Barbados.
    – Ike Lek (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize the subject was white. Let'srun (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not even look at the article? It has a picture of him and lists him as moving from England at a young age. Not to mention this was the first participation of the Zimbabwe Olympic Committee, which still largely resembled the Rhodesian Olympic Committee, as it didn't become effectively racially integrated until at least the 1984 games. Ike Lek (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised one would assume he was anything other than that, given the history ... and the infamous Ian Smith, the English birth and departure to Australia after the end of white-rule. Nfitz (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I said "but he's white". That's would be an argument (I hope!) to remove the article, not keep it. I'm merely pointing to the very reason there's the extensive historical record online and microfiche for media from that period. Enough of this - could someone with access go and check the online archive! It seems a bit much that an article which has been here for a decade is subject to an AFD without actual access to the appropriate places to do a proper BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't bother to look at the picture, but did read over the article (since that is where the claim of notability comes from), and noted that it was good, but of questionable independence and origination. We still do not know and haven't verified what newspaper it came from and it is poor form to be citing just based on twitter links. It still stands that WP:NEXISTS does not apply when we have no other evidence of WP:SIGCOV based on such questionable sourcing. Ike Lek, I WP:AGF that you and the other !keep voters wish to improve the project, but I simply disagree that we should keep this article based on what sourcing we have at this moment, and that should be the basis of keeping the article or not. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its an argument to remove the article, nor to keep it. I merely meant that in this case, it is a pretty good argument against this being a case of WP:RGW, considering the real great wrong here, in my opinion, is the lack of representation for "Black" Zimbabweans on Wikipedia (and in history), but it would be a case of WP:RGW for me to try to correct that without adequate sources. Ike Lek (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair and a perfectly reasonable way of thinking. I was solely considering the country, not the race, when I made that comment, and understand why you and others would've thought otherwise. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On one hand fair enough, @Let'srun - I'm surprised that anyone would think 1980 Zimbabwe athletes in the Olympics, days after the earth-shattering election win by Robert Mugabe after the well-known British takeover of Rhodesia in 1979 and think "black", given the decades-old international boycott (including the Olympics - with Rhodesia never even competing in cycling before in their other appearances since 1928) - but we know the teaching of history and news reporting is poor in some places. But it does make me concerned that there's not enough BEFORE here. There's literally a picture of the pair of them in the 1980 article - blond hair and all. Not to mention colour photographs of the daughter in other references. This reinforces my long-standing position that there's too many people at AFD who are not spending enough time researching each AFD (or PROD) before making a prejudicial "vote". Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to be fair, one of the three cyclist they sent was black. It isn't that crazy an assumption without research, but I agree with the point about a general lack of WP:BEFORE. Ike Lek (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Gillow&oldid=1312253540"