Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cockshott

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. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cockshott

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being the designer of a former Olympic sailboat should be sufficiënt reason on it self to be notable in wikipedia. This fact is wel documented in the topic. Dragon Genoa (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragon Genoa. The article as a whole needs more citations but notability is assured by the section on his boat design. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. Why does designing a former Olympic sailboat mean you qualify for an article? I do not see anyone writing any substantial biographical information about him anywhere. If he is only notable for the design, and no one is writing about him as a person, it seems as though the article should be redirected at best. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to 12 foot dinghy. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLYMPICS. NOLYMPICS only applies to the athletes, not people that design equipment used in sporting events. The relevant guideline here is GNG. Subject lacks significant in depth independent coverage. Not a single source in a WP:BEFORE search or in the article matches the criteria needed to demonstrate the subject passess WP:GNG. A big clue to the inappropriateness of the article is the WP:Original research (interviews with family by the page's author) given as the main source in the listed references. Article clearly violated WP:No original research. There are plenty of sources on his boat though. So I would sugged a selective merge and redirect per WP:ATD. Note to closer please consider the absence of a policy driven argument by the keep voters.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the keeps are unconvincing; so is the original rationale; so this essentially leaves one well argued comment in favour of merging; which by itself is not enough to establish there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO #2, and arguably #1. He won both sailing honours and design awards, and two of his designs are independently notable (the West Kirby Star and the 12 foot dinghy). Like authors of notable books, or directors of notable films, being the designer of multiple notable vessels strikes me as a significant contribution to the fields of sailing, boat design, and sport. That the article might have been written in an inappropriate manner is worth considering, but ultimately that's a fixable problem and we're talking about someone who died almost 70 years ago, not some living, self-promotional start-up CEO. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I am not seeing any notable awards or sailing honors in the article. Certainly nothing that passes ANYBIO. What exactly are you referring to? Also, how do you justify the lack of sourcing? Most of the content is completely unreferenced beyond the boat design content. Lastly, the lack of coverage of him personally would seem to suggest that while his boats are notable, he is not. WP:Notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1903 he won a trophy" / "In 1912 Cockshott won a design competition". While notability might not be inherited from famous relatives or because of association with singular events, the standard set by multiple notability guidelines is that the creators of notable things (books, films, buildings, etc) are notable for having made said notable contribution. Its the basis of guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stalwart111 I see that. But who awarded it? What competition? The trophy could have been given by a completely unknown organization. Likewise the competition could have been trivial. There are no sources or details for these. As such, how in the world could you argue these as significant? Likewise, we don’t have enough sources citing his work as significant to make a CREATIVE claim. Where is the significant coverage on Cockshott to support your argument? 4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 Agree, absolutely. We don't know, except that the trophy was awarded by Cambridge University and was thereafter named in his honour (and subsequently presented by Cockshott to later winners). Thus he "arguably" meets #1. But, conversely, arguably not. It's sort of moot anyway, because I believe he passes #2. His designs were recognised by peers, having been "granted informal international status in 1914 and full international status was confirmed by the IYRU (now World Sailing) in 1919". That design was later recognised as an Olympic standard. And then you have the fact that the George Cockshott Cup is still presented today; recognition of his contribution to the sport, whether you consider his having won it originally or not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to agree with you if the award itself is notable. However, the award was not awarded by Cambridge University but a student club at the university. Those are two very different things. If the award itself is notable (as in it gets significant coverage in independent sources) then I would agree with this logic. However, I am not seeing any independent coverage of this award. So I still don’t think it counts towards ANYBIO. As for the other rationale, given the lack of sources on Cockshot and the design for the 12 foot dinghy being the Olympic standard, a merge/redirect to the article on the boat seems like a better choice given the lack of sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, inclusion at the Olympics seems adequate as a source to verify it was considered an Olympic standard, but I take your point. And I think a "student club" that was giving out silver cups in 1903 probably have a more substantive history than we might consider their modern "student club" equivalents to have. My concern with a redirect is that he's notable (in my view) for having designed two independently notable things. Other than being small sailing boats, they don't seem to have a lot in common (thought admittedly my knowledge of such things is limited). He is referenced in the lede of both articles. Though one vessel design is arguably more notable that the other, I don't think it serves any encyclopedic value to include biographical information in the article of one of his creations and not the other. And if we accept that he was responsible for creating both notable things, I'm inclined to believe he meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cockshott Trophy Series", by the way, continues to this day and the cup was this year presented to the winner by George's grandson. It's now a four-event international series. I also found this magazine article which would seem to constitute significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also brief mentions in modern media as a result, here, here, and here. The latter is particularly helpful in establishing the lasting impact his design work had on sailing and the fact that there is ongoing enthusiasm for his designs among modern sailors. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, thinking about it a bit more, the fact that his namesake trophy is now an international event and that winning said event might be enough for someone to be considered notable in their own right (given its significance far beyond its original boundaries as a Cambridge University event), I would argue that constitutes his having had a lasting impact on the sport of sailing on its own. Its perhaps not on the same level as the Ryder Cup (Samuel Ryder), Stanley Cup (Fred Stanley), or Heisman Trophy (John Heisman), but it is significant nonetheless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 9 October 2021 (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.