Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umberto Agliorini


 * 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 redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Umberto Agliorini

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, being sourced entirely to databases, and fails WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 29 Italian Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming fifth. Apart from that, all we know about him is his name and where he was born - we don't even know when he was born, or when he died. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Searching got me no additional sources. I don't see an easy solution here, especially since all of the team members at Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team are blue links with entries like this one. I don't oppose a redirect, but I don't find that this subject needs one - in the unlikely event of a search on the person's name the 1908 Olympics article will be retrieved. The big question is: what to do with all of the others?! Lamona (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried tagging for notability, and I've tried prodding, but Lugnuts rejected all of those - despite the fact that even they aren't convinced we should keep the articles. It seems we need to go through these one by one, as nominating them as a group will be closed as "procedural close". BilledMammal (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per Lugnuts Adamtt9 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not need a whole page of redirects, which is what we will get if we redirect this article. There are no sources providing even minimal significant coverage. There is no reason to think that this person was at all notable. There is no reason to redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per Lugnuts. See WP:R, which 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). This has existed since 2018, which as far as I'm concerned is indeed "quite some time". Ingratis (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That applies to redirects not to articles. It is not a redirect, and we do not keep articles just because they have existed for quite some time. We are talking about an article not a redirect. There is no redirect proposed for deletion. If we applied the policy like you suggest we would not delete any article from before 2018, and would just redirect all of them to something. This is not a wise policy. The material you quote has no bearing onwhether or not we should delete an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 16 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.