Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Schmitt
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Johan Schmitt (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)
LUGSTUB-a-like for a non-notable athlete who competed at the Olympic games, once. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE, though the fact that the name of the subject is literally the Dutch version of "John Smith" hardly helps. A search on RKD yields a single-paragraph description - not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if there is no significant coverage. By the way, is RKD a reliable source? ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- RKD is certainly a reliable source for artists, not for gymnasts. An artist with an RKD entry is presumably notable. I assume that the article can be saved based on Schmitt`s notability as an artist. I´ll look into it in the next few days. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Schmitt was part of the Dutch team that won a silver medal at the second World Gymnastics Championships in 1905. He came in 9th at the individual all around event that year. He was dutch national champion when the dutch team participated in the 1908 Summer Olympics. For these reasons, he explicitly meets WP:NGYMNAST. I have updated the article with this info. He also had formal training as an artist (drawing, sculpture) and was an accomplished musician (piano). A query at Delpher with the search term "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" renders over 200 hits in newspapers, magazines and books. I have not found a full biography but there are many references that show his activity as a gymnast, teacher, chairman of gymnastics associations, musician and drawer.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ruud Buitelaar, @Svartner - No individual medals were awarded at any gymnastics championships prior to 1922: they were purely team events (see page 76 here). At some point after 1922 (possibly as late as 2006 since the 1981 history doesn't mention it but the 2006 one does) scores were awarded retrospectively. A retrospectively-awarded score awarded years later is not the same as one received at the time for our purposes, since the coverage that surrounds winning a medal won't have happened.
- Team medals were awarded, but per WP:NTEAM, individuals don't inherit the notability of their team.
- Since Schmitt is such a common name, we cannot simply rely on numbers of hits as a source of coverage.
- I'm happy to withdraw if a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source (as is required for all sports biographies per WP:NSPORTS2022) can be produced for Schmitt, but not for single-sentence mentions that don't reach the SIGCOV standard. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ruud Buitelaar, @Svartner - No individual medals were awarded at any gymnastics championships prior to 1922: they were purely team events (see page 76 here). At some point after 1922 (possibly as late as 2006 since the 1981 history doesn't mention it but the 2006 one does) scores were awarded retrospectively. A retrospectively-awarded score awarded years later is not the same as one received at the time for our purposes, since the coverage that surrounds winning a medal won't have happened.
- Weak keep – Per Ruud Buitelaar analysis. The subject is notable considering beyond the sporting context. Svartner (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect. The preoccupation over whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not is misplaced, as per the overarching NSPORT guideline a source of IRS SIGCOV is required to be cited in the article for any presumptions of further GNG coverage existing to be applied. @Svartner @Ruud Buitelaar I've also looked through the Delpher archive and every single one of the 141 hits for
"J. H. A. G. Schmitt" gymnastiek
is either from in-house publications of orgs Schmitt belonged to (e.g. the "official organ" of the Dutch Olympic Committee, Zaan Gymnastics Association, etc.), or a passing mention:Non-independent:
- (62 hits) Passing mentions in "Het turnblad; orgaan van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek Verbond": [1]
- (1 hit) Passing mentions in "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek-Verbond": [2]
- (2 hits) KNGV announcement in "Olympic Day" (published by Dutch Olympics Committee) that says he will provide "piano accompaniment" at some KNGV event: [3]
- (3 hits) Passing mentions in "De Revue der Sporten: Officieel Orgaan van het Nederlandsch Olympisch Comité": [4][5]
- (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Algemeen Sportblad Voor N.-Holland: Officieel orgaan van den [...] Zaanschen Turnbond": [6][7]
- (1 hit) An announcement in "Weekly of the General Dutch Diamond Workers' Union" by the Arbeiders Gymnastiek Vereeniging listing him as its director: [8]
- (3 hits) Passing mentions in primary government "Report on the state of higher, secondary, and primary schools", e.g.
By council resolution of 22 September, the municipal council appointed J. H. A. G. Schmitt as his successor for the current school year, who took up his position on 16 October.
[9] andA periodic increase in annual salary was granted to J. H. A. G. Schmitt and Miss Dr. M. J. Baale.
[10] - (5 hits) Announcements in "De lichamelijke opvoeding; orgaan van de Vereeniging van Gymnastiek-Onderwijzers (L. en M.O.) in Nederland" (official organ of the Association of Gymnastics Teachers): [11]
- (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Nederlandsche sport: officiëel orgaan der [...] Nederl. Gymnastiek Verbond": [12][13]
- (4 hits) His name in a list of Olympics entrants published repeatedly by the "De Sport" the "official organ of the Rotterdam Football Association": [14][15]
- (1 hit) Apparently the alderman of the Amsterdam Gymnastics Association mentioned him as the former Association director and a current "musical accompanist at the ladies' practices" in a speech at an AGA celebration: [16]
- Potentially independent, but trivial and/or primary:
- JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wow! Nice job, @JoelleJay! I was just going through the same hits and, by and large, agree with your assessment that the vast majority, very close to 100%, are passing mentions. Whether or not the magazine of the Gymnastics Association is an independent source may be a matter of debate. In the article, I added a citation in Revue der Sporten that is rather critical of Mr Schmitt`s design of the poster for the 50th anniversary of the Association. I also cite a volume of Het Leven Geillustreerd, clearly an independent publication, dedicated to the same celebration, mentioning Schmitt as head organizer. Anyway, I made my point. I´ll make an entry for Schmitt in the Dutch Wikipedia so this information will not get lost if it is decided that the english version should be transformed in a redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ruud Buitelaar, according to NSPORT
governing sports bodies are not considered independent
so that magazine and all the others that are "official organs" of sporting orgs are definitely not independent. While HLG does seem independent, all it has is a photo caption stating "The head instructor, JHAG Schmitt", which is not enough for SPORTSCRIT. Revue der Sporten was published by the Dutch Olympic Committee and so is also not independent. Good idea to add it to nl.wp though! JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)- Done. Hopefully the nl wiki generates more info. I found a newspaper article (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden), definitely independent, that reports in some detail that Schmitt organized workshops to introduce rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands in the 1920s. On these occasions he also played the piano. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ruud Buitelaar, according to NSPORT
- Wow! Nice job, @JoelleJay! I was just going through the same hits and, by and large, agree with your assessment that the vast majority, very close to 100%, are passing mentions. Whether or not the magazine of the Gymnastics Association is an independent source may be a matter of debate. In the article, I added a citation in Revue der Sporten that is rather critical of Mr Schmitt`s design of the poster for the 50th anniversary of the Association. I also cite a volume of Het Leven Geillustreerd, clearly an independent publication, dedicated to the same celebration, mentioning Schmitt as head organizer. Anyway, I made my point. I´ll make an entry for Schmitt in the Dutch Wikipedia so this information will not get lost if it is decided that the english version should be transformed in a redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
* Keep: person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. Per point 1 winning a medal at world championships and if he was also national champion in 1908(?) also per point 2. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep leaning to Keep: possibly meets point 2 of WP:NGYMNAST winning an individual national champion title in 1908(?). But also as introducer of rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands that is claimed in the article (didn't check the source) and as director of main gymnastics clubs. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)- NGYMNAST point 1 says (emphasis mine):
Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition
, so no, doesn't meet that with a team medal. Point 2 is for individual events. Also note JoelleJay's point that even if a subject meets NGYMNAST, at least one source is still required. I'm a bit reluctant to !vote on this one, considering Ruud Buitelaar's arguments above, but on the sourcing and the evidence, this looks like a reluctant redirect from me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)- Thanks, yes my fault. I missed it was a team event. I will adjust my vote. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @95.98.65.177, the more salient point here is that the article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, which it does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added a few more citations. The poor showing at the 1908 Summer Olympics did cause a stir and Schmitt got some heat. De Telegraaf, a leading Dutch newspaper, and several other newspapers reported about Schmitt´s leading role in organizing entertainment for the team, which was seen as a lack of attitude toward the games. We had missed those news articles because he is not mentioned as "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" but as "Joh. Schmitt". Indeed, as WP:NGYMNAST states, SIGCOV is likely to exist for people like Schmitt. I continue my search. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay: All Wikipedia articles require multiple IR SIGCOV to pass GNG. Even only one provided is too weak and still not enough. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct. However subject notability guidelines often provide a refutable presumption that sources will exist based on some additional criteria, and articles are often kept based on such additional criteria. Here, the additional criteria would be WP:GYMNAST. But what WP:SPORTCRIT says is that, when relying on such additional criteria, there must still be at least one IRS SIGCOV source actually on the page. This, it specifically says, does not show that the subject is notable, but it is a minimum requirement for anyone relying on the additional criteria in the subject notability guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay: All Wikipedia articles require multiple IR SIGCOV to pass GNG. Even only one provided is too weak and still not enough. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added a few more citations. The poor showing at the 1908 Summer Olympics did cause a stir and Schmitt got some heat. De Telegraaf, a leading Dutch newspaper, and several other newspapers reported about Schmitt´s leading role in organizing entertainment for the team, which was seen as a lack of attitude toward the games. We had missed those news articles because he is not mentioned as "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" but as "Joh. Schmitt". Indeed, as WP:NGYMNAST states, SIGCOV is likely to exist for people like Schmitt. I continue my search. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @95.98.65.177, the more salient point here is that the article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, which it does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes my fault. I missed it was a team event. I will adjust my vote. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- NGYMNAST point 1 says (emphasis mine):
- Keep. Historical figure with unusually diverse accomplishments in gymnastics. Absolutely no BLP concern. Meets BASIC and HEY. Also, this article was created by User:Doma-w, not by User:Lugnuts! gidonb (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Where is the required SIGCOV source? How does he even meet BASIC when all the coverage is primary and/or non-independent? This and this and this are primary accounts by attendees or eyewitnesses, this is a passing mention... JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Gidonb -
"this article was created by User:Doma-w"
, which is why the nomination says "Lugstub-a-like". And as disucssed, multiple instances of IRS SIGCOV are required here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Gidonb -
- Where is the required SIGCOV source? How does he even meet BASIC when all the coverage is primary and/or non-independent? This and this and this are primary accounts by attendees or eyewitnesses, this is a passing mention... JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- There are so many Lugstubs. Why at all invoke this if an article is unrelated to Lugnuts? gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of keep !votes here, but unless I've missed it, no one's managed to find sigcov even still?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)- @Asilvering The Netherlands Institute of Art History is a perfectly reliable, independent source. Schmitt´s biographical entry there provides significant information. That is one SIGCOV source. The article on the Dutch gymnastics team in London 1908, where Schmitt is signalled as the main culprit of the poor performance, was first published in the magazine of the Gymnastics Association, supposedly not an independent source, but then replicated in De Telegraaf, De Tijd, De Nieuwe Courant. They are independent, reliable sources. See also this discussion about, among other things, SIGCOV for topics over 100 years ago. The discussion also refers to WP:MULT to argue that redirect is not an option because Schmitt is notable for multiple events. I, for one, am extremely reluctant to delete lemma`s about people who lived over a century ago, for which we have indications that they are likely notable. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Ruud Buitelaar, that Netherlands Institute of Art History entry is a database entry, not sigcov. No comment on the others as whether a newspaper article is sigcov or not is up to the discussion participants. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per policy, non-independent coverage does not become independent simply by being republished elsewhere. WP:MULT is not a policy or guideline and so is not an appropriate !vote rationale. We had a massive global consensus requiring sportsperson bios cite IRS SIGCOV, regardless of how old the topic is or how difficult potential sources are to access. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering The Netherlands Institute of Art History is a perfectly reliable, independent source. Schmitt´s biographical entry there provides significant information. That is one SIGCOV source. The article on the Dutch gymnastics team in London 1908, where Schmitt is signalled as the main culprit of the poor performance, was first published in the magazine of the Gymnastics Association, supposedly not an independent source, but then replicated in De Telegraaf, De Tijd, De Nieuwe Courant. They are independent, reliable sources. See also this discussion about, among other things, SIGCOV for topics over 100 years ago. The discussion also refers to WP:MULT to argue that redirect is not an option because Schmitt is notable for multiple events. I, for one, am extremely reluctant to delete lemma`s about people who lived over a century ago, for which we have indications that they are likely notable. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I striked my doubts and change to full Keep per WP:HEY and per WP:MULT as notable for multiple events indicated by Ruud Buitelaar. All coverage is from what I see reliable. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neither HEY nor MULT is a valid keep rationale. The article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Out of the 300+ hits in Delpher, the article now has at least half a dozen of clippings from major Dutch newspapers in which Schmitt is mentioned, not in a trivial but in a significant way. I`d say we have more than enough SIGCOV. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sources must also be independent, reliable and secondary, of course. News reports are generally primary. For instance, this one [24] tells us about a picture he has drawn. That is, the reporter has looked at the image, and reports on what they saw. It is an eye witness account, and although we can infer from this that the subject was a good painter but not so much a poster maker, and that he drew this specific picture, all the biographical information clearly relies on us doing our own analysis of that eyewitness account. It is primary, and thus does not count towards notability on English Wikipedia. Dutch Wikipedia has different rules, so it may be fine there (although I see that it has very similar rules to us on original research), but English Wikipedia requires secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they are listed as good arguments to make in deletion discussion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Out of the 300+ hits in Delpher, the article now has at least half a dozen of clippings from major Dutch newspapers in which Schmitt is mentioned, not in a trivial but in a significant way. I`d say we have more than enough SIGCOV. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neither HEY nor MULT is a valid keep rationale. The article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - I think there's enough info here considering that 1) the source material is foreign and limited and 2) it's over 100 years old. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, per expansion and the arguments of several others above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)