Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilian Staugaard


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Lilian Staugaard

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Staugaard was a non-medlalist at the Olympics, she seems to have come in 18th in the one competition she was in. I could not find any indepth source about her. The swimming database says just her name and that she was in this Olympics. A newspaper source turned up some mentions of another person with this name in Indiana in the 1970s who was somehow connected with fashion, no sourcing on this person. The sourcing on the other person suggests this is not even the primary likely target of searches for this name and that there is no merit in having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If nothing can be found on her then redirect to Swimming at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Except there is at least one other person with this same name who actually gets marginally more coverage, so no reason to assume this would be the primary search topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women,  and Denmark.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * But they don't have an article on WP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. My searches also found no SIGCOV. Redirect is not a good outcome if, as nom asserts, there is another person of potential notability with the same name. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is the first AfD I was able to search on newspapers.com since I was granted access!! And like the nominator said, all I found was someone related to fashion (hopefully I searched right.) but yes, delete. SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 19:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Don't redirect, given the existence of more notable Lilian Staugaard's. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - only one person of this name on Wikipedia. WP:R urges against deleting a longstanding article without replacing it by a redirect. Redirects to list items are fine; there is a redirect template especially for it. The suggestion that the name should be reserved for some person from Indiana of apparently marginal notability who has no article is very odd. Unlike above editors, I don't feel justified in accepting that the "other" LS is meaningfully more notable just on someone's say-so. Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * However there is nothing about this person that is notable, and no reason to preserve the listing of the person as a redirect unless we have compelling reason to think that they are notable. Your proposal seems to treat Wikipedia longevity as a sign of anything worth noting. The reality is Wikipedia longevity is a result of Wikipedia having been flooded with junk when it was created, and we have still not sorted all that junk out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See below on the significance of longevity. Ingratis (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also R#HARMFUL concerns "redirects" that have been "redirects" for a long time. It has no application here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:R#HARMFUL says: "deletion of redirects is harmful... if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time)" (my bolding). Exactly its application here. Ingratis (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.