Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Langston


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  06:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lindsay Langston

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

Non-notable results in Olympics (WP:NOLYMPICS). Archery does not have its own SNG. NewspaperArchive.com did not find much notable mentions or sigcov. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Her bio states she was the #1 ranked archer in the US. This states she was a Multiple Time U.S. National Champion and Former Top 10 World Ranked Women Archer (along with being a former #1 in the US), so would meet WP:ANYBIO. A quick search finds coverage here and at mcall.com/news with a story titled "MEDAL PROSPECTS BRIGHT FOR OLYMPIC SHOOTERS". Sadly, this link is blocked for viewing in the UK. Boo! At worst, redirect to United States at the 1996 Summer Olympics, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The mcall link has two sentences on her, it's a general article on the American team and archery events at the Olympics in general. Wouldn't be significant coverage. (I used VPN to access it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mccall link archived version (for those who can't access and dont have VPN): https://ghostarchive.org/archive/U1U7n Rlink2 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sports rankings are not "well-known and significant award or honor[s]" nor (as demonstrated by the lack of SIGCOV) has Langston "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", so I fail to see what aspect of ANYBIO she satisfies. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being #1 ranked in the US, multi-time US champ, top 10 in the world...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources on the championships won? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've listed them above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an independent reliable source. I say on my website that I am the six time Trans-ScottFinland International Paper Airplane Champion of the World, but that doesn't mean it's reliable, or independent. We don't use the websites of companies subjects work for to a) establish notability or b) source awards and accomplishments. I offer Paper Airplane coaching services for 200 Pound Scots per hour. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those rankings stand-alone do not imply notability. Would a multi-time Cricket champ in Mexico be notable? Or the #1 chess player in Andorra? If there have been 1,000 top 10 players in the history of curling do all of them have notability? My point is that if those achievements are not enough for even local media to report significantly on her, then she wasn't a notable enough athlete in her prime. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. We're not talking about cricket in Mexico or Chess in Andorra. Please stop pinging me too, I'll see the replies on my watchlist. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the pings, Lugnuts, I can see how that can get annoying! I tend not to watchlist many articles so I have the tendency to ping a lot (see my signature lol). Point is I am not making a "what about x" argument in favor of deletion (or redirection, which is probably best), but rather arguing that as the achievements you mentioned have no context at all, there is no way to know what implied notability they carry. Being the #1 chess player in the US for example is very notable as there are many chess players in that country, a very active competition scene, and significant coverage of chess players. If you could provide an argument for why being the #1 female archer in the US is a strong indication of notability then inclusion would make sense. Just throwing rankings at us when we are not fans or active followers of archery doesn't allow us to interpret that information in a way that is helpful for the AfD debate. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I last visited this page, the article has been expanded somewhat significantly by Bungle with a plethora of sources.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, Except those url stated by Lugnuts, I didn't find any url or sources where there is any significant coverage about her. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Olympedia can't be used to show notability as it is a database with wide, sweeping standards of inclusion per WP:SPORTSCRIT. McAll just has two sentences about the subject so not SigCov. We need at least two instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and at this point we don't have anything. The only source we have for her ever having been US no. 1 is Olympedia, the bios of which are of indifferent reliability (cf. the previous case of them getting a date of death wrong), and even if it is true nothing allows us to assess how notable having been US female no. 1 in archery really is - certainly no-one seems to have thought that it was all that notable otherwise they would have written about it. AmericanArcheryAcademy.com is not an independent source as the subject works there. Similarly the AP story is effectively an interview and as such not independent of the subject.
 * Oppose redirect as a Lindsay "Pop" Langston was a member of the Chicago Doo-Wop band the Foster Brothers and people are just as likely to be looking for them as they are for this person, since that band would also possibly pass our notability guide based on these sources (1 2). FOARP (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found sig cov as per my !vote below and expanded the article. I'd be interested in your analysis of these sources with regards to determination of notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete we do not have the significant coverage to justify an article. Being top ranked in some area is not in and of itself a sign of notability unless we have significant source coverage of this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment USA Archery only seems to keep records of national championships online since 2011. It might be worthwhile to ask them directly. -- Maddy from Celeste  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu  16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per my expansion (WP:HEY) from historic newspaper sources, of which several are WP:SIGCOV, including numerous coverage from Albuquerque Journal, the largest newspaper in New Mexico. Several articles specifically about her in interviews from the 1990s, including this, this, this and this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bungle's sources seem to prove significant coverage as per WP:GNG, regardless of the achievements discussed before. -- Maddy from Celeste  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu  17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - All four of the additional sources noted by Bungle are interviews with her/her father. Interviews with the subject/her father are not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @FOARP: All four of the examples I offered are written by journalists independent of the subject (who are credited with authoring the respective articles) and published by newspapers or news outlets that are not associated with the subject. I do not see anything in the guidelines that prevents us using such sources that have been written with support of interviews with the subject, or someone associated with the subject. I feel it may be clutching at straws to suggest that interviews don't count as WP:SIGCOV and would suggest that you'd need to explain further if you disagree. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews does state that interviews shouldn't be relied on to establish notability. That is, however, only an essay, and I agree that the articles are not solely interviews. -- Maddy from Celeste  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu  20:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about starting a discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:Notability, since it seems a bit off to me. I understand that the information would be primary sourced, but journalists, I assume, aren't picking non-notable people to interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The information is still voluntarily provided (or intentionally selected, depending on how you want to portray it) by the subject which poses NPOV issues. And given interviews require careful editor judgement (like other WP:PRIMARY sources), now with the added difficulty of their inherent non-neutrality, it would overall be a bad idea. An encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is, or at least is supposed to be) is usually based on secondary sources independent of their subjects (like academic reports or serious books or proper journalism): allowing interviews would be overwhelmingly counterproductive towards that purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. When we don't consider non-independent statements by Langston or her father, the sources are not WP:SIGCOV which means WP:GNG is not met. There is also an WP:NPOV issue with sourcing articles primarily to non-independent sources, and a WP:PRIMARY issue with sourcing articles primarily to interviews. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal: With respect, have you actually looked at all the sources added or are you taking it at face value that they're all literal interviews with zero independent editorial value? If we take two articles, say this and this, only a small proportion is based on interview/discussion to support, and in the case of the latter, the majority discussed the subject's events and achievements by the writer. Subjects wouldn't be written about, or have the opportunity to be interviewed or otherwise covered in mainstream media if they hadn't by that point gained some degree of notability. These are multiple articles, over a wide enough timeframe, by different organisations and different article authors, all writing about this individual. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per great expansion work by Bungle. Meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a couple more sources and re-arranged some things. The GNG source coverage is very clearly there to provide SIGCOV. Looks like the NewspaperArchive is rather inferior to the sources available in Newspapers.com (though the former does often have smaller local papers not found in the latter). Either way, the subject appears to meet notability standards with secondary source coverage about Langston across multiple years. Silver  seren C 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion can't be justified in this case. Deb (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Mainly to show appreciation for Bungle's work in demonstrating this individual's notability with the addition of many sources. Canadian   Paul  20:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * *Delete we still do not have the level of sourcing to actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We're also not going to allow you to !vote twice. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed my vote up above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. 10+ refs that are coverage from reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could any of the keep !voters please identify which source they believe gives the subject significant, independent coverage and why? Otherwise we're just having to deal with a WP:REFBOMB that appears to consist entirely of either interviews or brief mentions. It would be great to be pointed to even one source that is not an interview with the subject or their family, or a brief mention. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @FOARP: I guess it's important not to conflate the idea of an "interview" with an independent publication that uses aspects of an interview to support (or compliment) some of the material. An out-and-out interview, where the article is solely based on questions and answers is one thing, but that is not what we have here. I don't know if I can elaborate much beyond my response to BilledMammal above as my points there still stand. Even WP:INTERVIEW (which is an essay, not a policy), acknowledges that commentary in these cases can count as a secondary source. I already noted this article, which has perhaps only around 10% of quotation. With regards to WP:REFBOMB, not all sources in an article need to be there to demonstrate notability, but many can support other facts that are otherwise not covered elsewhere. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of these are articles that use quotes from the subject but are independent coverage. There is a difference between using quotes in an article or report and a question-answer, question-answer printed interview which usually has less editorial oversight. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG with the significant coverage found by Bungle. Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the expansion and sourcing. Keep I find the concerns with subject interviews to be kind of troubling; most every news article is built from interviews, synthesized by the reporter doing the writing. Q&A articles where the interview is printed with minimal synthesis and editing contain the same information, just in a different form. (Entirely IMO as a working reporter.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 7 April 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.