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. Technically a WP:SNOW keep as this hasn't been listed on the log for 7 days. It is clear that NOLYMPICS is met. Some people argue that GNG is not met, but the majority opinion is that multiple specifically-identified sources show GNG is met as well. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Barrett[edit]

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

Stephanie Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of this article insists that it exist, and has illegally removed the speedy deletion tag, even though it does not comply with "A7. No indication of importance" He and another have removed reasonable Speedy Deletion tag without providing any additional information that would make the article valid. We don't have articles for any and all Olympic athletes.--Tallard (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not Wikipedia's rule, the rule states: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games," Barrett is not a past Olympian. So this "keep" is not justified.--Tallard (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. The rule is not "past Olympians but not current or imminent ones" — and even if that were the rule, the Olympics that she's competing in will be "past" in just a few weeks anyway, meaning that the article would have to come back in just one month and would be entirely pointless to delete now. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not Wikipedia's rule, the rule states: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games," Barrett is not yet competed in any Olympics. So this "keep" is not justified, as it does not follow Wikipedia guidelines.--Tallard (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly our rule. What you failed to mention in your nomination is that she isn't an Olympic athlete yet. However she will be shortly and she also passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka and Tallard, the NSPORT guideline actually explicitly requires subjects to meet GNG; meeting NOLY only presumes GNG. See the FAQs at the top of NSPORT, which include:

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline... Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.

and

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you’re coming from with 2 and 3 but I don’t think such a firm GNG reject per your point 1 is supported. What you’ve quoted suggests that when a subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS, that puts the burden of proof on the deleter to prove a strong fail of GNG, which I think requires a more thorough WP:BEFORE than has been done. Even the GNG itself only provides a strong presumption of notability and not a guarantee, so saying a subject is presumed-but-not-proven notable is not as definitive as you suggest. I assume you’ve rejected the archery.ca source on the grounds that it’s not independent (I need convincing), but looking just at the first page of Google news results I find these possible sources: 1 2 3 — the RDS one especially looks like significant coverage to my eye, and the others are reporting on results of events she competed in. I’m not as familiar with what SIGCOV looks like for sports, so maybe more is needed, but I’m not yet convinced that there’s a lack of SIGCOV. Only CRYSTALBALL strikes me as a viable override of OLYMPIC, but CRYSTALBALL is really meant for articles which can’t contain any non-speculative information, whereas Barrett’s article includes past events and her current qualification, which has in fact occurred. I think the best rationale remains your 2, the fact that she may not be “an Olympian” until the games actually take place, which increasingly strikes me as one of those “technically correct” rulings that goes against common sense. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my interpretation that passing a sports-specific notability guideline, like WP:NOLYMPICS, puts the burden of proof on the nominator, rather is meant to stop the article from being speedily deleted. Regardless, a nominator should always do a WP:BEFORE, which I suspect was not done here. As for WP:SIGCOV for sports, it is the same as for others articles, i.e. coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Archery.ca is the website for the national governing body for the sport of Archery in Canada and as such is a primary source and not independent of the subject, similar to a team or league websites. Of the three sources you found, the ones in the Toronto Sun and the cbc.ca are WP:TRIVIAL mentions, both only briefly mentioning Barrett once. The RDS article for me is to small to constitude as a significant coverage but even if we did consider it significant, that means we have two articles dated 28 June 2021 and 5 July 2021 which would not constitude a WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. The bottom line is that Barrett has to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. As it stands, I am not seeing that coverage about Barrett even though I have searched extensively. Alvaldi (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument of WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles on Olympians here that are based on WP:NOLYMPICS. Are you arguing those articles should be deleted as well? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUSTAINED absolutely applies here. WP:ATHLETE makes it very clear that all its subjects must met WP:GNG and GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Regardless of whether a person is an Olympian, professional footballer, politician or something else, if the person does not have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then he or she should not have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. I am not arguing for anything other than we follow the Wikipedia policies, something that unfortunately routenly gets ignored in the sports related AfD's. Alvaldi (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is also a policy, and there is a long-standing consensus that all Olympians are notable. If you wish to change that, I don't think individual AfDs are the best way. pburka (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community consensus can be found in its policies, which I've quoted above, and it is clear on that all athletes, Olympians or not, must pass WP:GNG. Local consensus by editors in a sport specific project does not override the wider community consensus. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Alvaldi (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're playing wikilawyers, let's be clear that GNG is a *guideline*, not a policy, and guidelines are meant to describe best practices for following policies. Sometimes guidelines don't accurately reflect actual practice. This isn't a matter of local consensus: keeping Olympians has never been controversial. I challenge you to find previous AfDs for Olympians that didn't end in keep. pburka (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is indeed a guideline but we have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Just how exactly is a person notable if we have to ignore the principal policies and guidelines of Wikipedia for it to be included? Alvaldi (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about archery.ca being a primary source, but between the Toronto Star and RDS it’s still a GNG pass for me. I don’t agree that this coverage fails WP:SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED is not really about the literal number of days occurring between articles; if it was, we couldn’t have an article about the 2021 European floods yet. Instead it says “If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” These articles discuss multiple different archery events and as an Olympian she is unlikely to remain a low-profile individual. The various trivial mentions that show up are the best proof, I think, that the coverage is sustained—- she has been relevant to multiple articles in multiple contexts. I can see that we don’t have a Michael Phelps quantity of coverage here but we have enough that it feels silly to delete based on a pedantic WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this is the place to determine the relationship between athletics SNGs and GNG, but if both have to be met, what is the point of the SNG? I am more familiar with book editing where the SNG WP:NBOOK is extremely concrete and specific, which lets it be used as a contextually-clearer GNG substitute (it sounds like a low bar but you’d be amazed how many books don’t pass). It seems like an RfC or something is called for if the athletics SNG isn’t actually useful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry, I don't have access to the full article. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do I have access to the full economist article, and Barrett isn't mentioned again-- it's a short 4-paragraph piece about the history of transgender athletes in the Olympics which just name-drops Barrett.~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Olympic archer Stephanie Barrett is pulling the strings on a real-life fantasy story Yes Toronto Star Yes Yes all 1,183 words are on Barrett ✔ Yes
Six countries add Olympic quota places at Americas continental qualifier ? "World Archery is the international federation for the Olympic and Paralympic sport of archery" - maybe primary source? Yes No All it says is "Stephanie Barrett qualified Canada a spot with second" ✘ No
Stephanie Barrett to be Nominated for Tokyo 2020 No Archery Canada is considered a primary source Yes Yes all 366 words are on Barrett ✘ No
Stephanie Barrett ties the Canadian Record at the Archery World Cup in Lausanne No Archery Canada is considered a primary source Yes Yes 2 out of 4 paragraphs are about Barrett ✘ No
Le Canada sera représenté par Stephanie Barrett et Crispin Duenas en tir à l'arc aux Jeux olympiques Yes Réseau des sports Yes Yes all 166 words are on Barrett ✔ Yes
Qualifying for Tokyo Olympics an unprecedented challenge because of COVID-19 Yes Toronto Sun Yes No All it says is "Archery – 1 woman: Stephanie Barrett (Newmarket, Ont.) individual and mixed team." ✘ No
Canada tops podium to pin down Olympic berth in men's recurve archery Yes CBC Yes No All it says is "The Canadian team of Duenas and Stephanie Barrett of Newmarket, Ont., was defeated 5-3 by Mexico in the mixed recurve bronze-medal match." ✘ No
Canada to be represented by Stephanie Barrett and Crispin Duenas in archery at the Olympics Yes ? Archery Sport looks like a blog to me? No simple translation of RDS article, which can't count twice ✘ No
Why are transgender Olympians proving so controversial? Yes The Economist Yes No All it says is "She will be joined by Stephanie Barrett, a Canadian archer." ✘ No
York Region Tokyo Olympics athlete profiles — Stephanie Barrett, Newmarket, archery Yes Yes Local newspaper with independent reporting ? mostly reporting timing of relevant events, with 75-word bio of Barrett ? Unknown
Team Canada archers ready to take aim at Tokyo 2020 No Olympics.ca has close ties to the subject Yes Yes about 2/3 of the 512 words are about Barrett ✘ No
OLY ARC Archery Results Yes Associated Press Yes No all it says is "46. Stephanie Barrett, Canada, 630." ✘ No
Olympic wake-up call: Let the Games begin Yes CBC Yes ? 150-word section on archery (comes last), mentioning Barrett & including photo of her ? Unknown
Canadian archers just slightly off target in Olympic ranking rounds Yes National Post Yes Yes 280-word article splits focus between Barrett & Duenas, photo is of her ✔ Yes
Olympics overnight: Canadian mixed archers miss the mark in qualifying round, and more you missed while you were sleeping Yes Toronto Star Yes ? 130-word section on archery (comes first), mentioning Barrett & cover photo for article is of her ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
[EDIT: since I have been updating the source table, comments below may be responding to earlier versions. Sorry for the confusion, I haven't used a source table in an AfD before and am not sure of the best approach-- this seems better than duplicating the chart every time? But if duplication would be clearer I can do that instead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)] Looking at it all together, I can see how it's only a slim pass of GNG, hinging on whether others agree that the RDS coverage is "significant" because it's exclusively about Barrett. However, I think it's pretty good for someone who hasn't even competed in the Olympics yet-- it's not the total void of coverage that would justify overriding WP:NOLYMPICS in my mind-- and that Toronto Star profile especially is impressively long & thorough. The article will certainly be better in the future, but I don't think that means it is TOOSOON now. I still think it should be "keep." If others find more sources or want to rethink any of my assessments here, please ping me and I'll strike & update the source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great summarize. I also noticed that the Archery Sport article seems to be a word-for-word translation of the RDS article. I still think the RDS article is too weak, especially to be the second best source for an article, so I'm just not seeing GNG pass. For comparison sake (it is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST I know, but bear with me), The hardest craftsman in Iceland 2019 who despite being in no danger of ever having an article on Wikipedia, has more significant coverage over a longer period of time than Barrett does.[1][2] So if we ask ourself, just how notable is Barrett if she has less significant coverage than a non-notable electrician in Iceland? Alvaldi (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete passes Wikipedia:NOLYMPICS but fails WP:GNG with only a single article about her (in the Toronto Star). Per guidelines, both GNG and NOLYMPICS need to be passed, therefore the article fails. The other article that would qualify to pass GNG is the Economist one, but that is a passing mention and not in-depth: "She will be joined by Stephanie Barrett, a Canadian archer. ". --hroest 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of sources [3] and [4] and Per Lugnuts this article passes WP:GNG and WP:OLYMPICS. The article also passes WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont see an in depth significant coverage in these "profile" articles that you provided, it just seems to list some stats in a list-like fashion (eg hometown, residence, sport, division) which is very far from what WP:GNG requires. I just dont see enough significant coverage here except one article. --hroest 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly, as it stands, all but one source are promotional materials, clearly going against Wikipedia's "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity," WP:NOTPROMOTION.--Tallard (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Barrett has now officially competed at the 2020 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, per WP:ATHLETE she still has to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG regardless of participating in the Olympics. I did a quick search to see if anything additional has been written but couldn't find anything other than brief mentions. Alvaldi (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found an article focused just on the archery results: 1 plus some more trivial coverage 2 3. I've updated the source chart above. I've been finding all this coverage really interesting, actually-- Canada has never medalled in archery at all, so I'm excited about Barrett's next Olympics. Perhaps her career would not be so notable in a country that gets a lot of Olympic medals, but for Canada, it is exciting to have a new Olympian (for the summer Olympics, even!) with so much promise. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has already been had as can be seen in the community consensus shown in WP:ATHLETE, and that consensus is clear: All athletes must pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass sports-specific notability guidelines such as WP:NOLYMPICS. If articles of non-notable athletes are being kept despite them failing GNG then the discussion should be on why editors are going against the Wikipedia community consensus. On a further note, this is a modern day athlete from an english speaking country, if there were any more significant sources, they would be easily accessible. Alvaldi (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the RfC where it was discussed. If you can't, then stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. pburka (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus can be seen in the FAQ at the top of WP:ATHLETE, the links to the respective RfC are displayed in the FAQ under "References". Alvaldi (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC itself is here. The RfC concluded that the SNG "does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG." Which surprised me, because that is not how the relationship between the two has been characterized. The consensus that athletes must pass GNG in addition to the SNG emerged in three talk page discussions 1 2 3, which show some variance in opinion and which I don't understand to be binding in the same way as a formal RfC. Which suggests that a proper RfC on this topic is likely called for, unrelated to this deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist. The page was not listed in the log of the day it was created by the nominator. I have manually added it to today's log to start the correct process and allow AFD regulars to give their input as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know I already voted but this comment by the nominator stood out to me; "has illegally removed the speedy deletion tag". It's uh...not a law first of all. I checked and it doesn't even seem like it's against the rules to remove a tag from a page you created. I doubt the nominator even checked guidelines before jumping on this. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:26, 30 July 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.
More