Talk:Stephanie Barrett

Untitled
There is strictly no reason for this article to exist. It is an exact case for Speedy Deletion under a7

Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

1) a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness, or 2)information you learn while looking at any references provided in the article.--Tallard (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not pass, the two only sources are promotional materials, and has achieved no notable results. Wikipedia does not include ALL Olympians. If this athlete is noteworthy, then you must state WHAT is noteworthy. Is this athlete's only notoriety of being born the other sex? Then the article should so state, with appropriate sources.--Tallard (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sportsfan1234, the creator or this page, illegally removed the speedy deletion tag.
A page creator unilaterally removing a Speedy Deletion tag is contrary to Wikipedia policy: "For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag." This action by Sportsfan1234 is edit warring. --Tallard (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used'' Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not pass, the two only sources are promotional materials, and has achieved no notable results. Wikipedia does not include ALL Olympians. If this athlete is noteworthy, then you must state WHAT is noteworthy. Is this athlete's only notoriety of being born the other sex? Then the article should so state, with appropriate sources.--Tallard (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Another deletion process has been initiated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Barrett --Tallard (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any athlete who has competed in an Olympic games is presumed notable per longstanding policy. Please read WP:NOLYMPICS; it's a pretty short and simple section. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Illegally?! Why, Sir, I do declare!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Gender identity
Just a note here, because this article has seen frequent attempts to insert unsourced claims that Stephanie Barrett is transgender.

I am aware that a substack blogger recently named Stephanie Barrett in a post attacking the concept of transgender athletes being allowed to compete at the Olympics. However, what I am unable to find is any indication whatsoever that any reliable sources have ever identified Stephanie Barrett as transgender. For instance, Outsports's current list of all known LGBTQ athletes competing at Tokyo ([) does not name Stephanie Barrett, and [[Xtra!]]'s recent "big queer and trans guide to the Tokyo Olympics" says nothing about Stephanie Barrett, instead highlighting an athlete from New Zealand as the standalone historic first for trans athletes qualifying in individual Olympic events — but as a Canadian publication, they would certainly be expected to have highlighted a Canadian athlete as a co-owner of that title if Stephanie Barrett were actually trans.

And other than that substack post, I have never seen a single news article about Stephanie Barrett in any reliable sources that contained the word "transgender" at all. It isn't stated in any of the article's existing sources, for example — and if Outsports and Xtra don't know about Stephanie Barrett's gender identity, then the most likely explanation is that there's nothing about Stephanie Barrett's gender identity to know, as opposed to an Irish television scriptwriter somehow having accurate information about a Canadian athlete's gender identity that much, much more authoritative experts on LGBT sports and LGBT Canadian news missed.

So it's not "Stephanie Barrett is trans because some guy on substack said so" — it's exponentially more likely that the substack guy is wrong about Stephanie Barrett than it is that Outsports and Xtra! both somehow forgot to highlight Stephanie Barrett. So the article is not to make any claims about her gender identity until such time as a claim can be referenced to reliable sources, which means neutral news coverage and not advocacy substacks. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We certainly can't include this based on Graham Linehan's "research". I have found two reliable sources claiming she is trans - DW and the Economist, however both are trivial mentions.  (Breitbart and RT also claim this, but I won't even link to those sites).  I would expect an official IOC/Canadian Olympic Committee statement, or a statement from Barrett; it is somewhat odd that those do not appear to exist. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 21:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like it should be mentioned in the article, because of the Economist mention, and because the Economist is not a publication known for getting information from blogs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Power-enwiki is correct, we need a source that's much more substantive than either of those. Specifically, one that actually discusses Barrett as a subject, as opposed to just glancingly namechecking her existence a single time as a trivial aside in an article that focuses entirely on other people or a broad concept. It's entirely possible for a source to not have gotten its information directly from the blog, while still having been indirectly led astray by the blog because it repeated information that other sources got from the blog without independently reverifying it — so ideally we need to find a source in which Stephanie Barrett openly says that Stephanie Barrett is transgender in her own words, or at least one in which she's identified as trans in a neutral profile that's substantively about her, and a source that just briefly names her in passing isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And we can now add the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the list of media outlets that have covered the issue of transgender athletes at the Olympics strictly in terms of Laurel Hubbard and Quinn, while completely failing to mention Stephanie Barrett at all. This really isn't looking good for Graham Linehan's credibility, as you now have to believe that he's more authoritative on the issue of a Canadian athlete's gender identity than one of the most reputable news organizations on the entire planet. (Spoiler alert: he isn't.) Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, both the Economist and DW are reliable publications which do not base their reporting on hearsay, bits from blogs. Both satisfies WP:BLPRS ("inline citation"). On the contrary, I do not see in WP:BLP requirement that "the person has to be discussed as a subject in the article", or that the CBC has to report it. Ffaffff (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to sourcing sensitive or potentially contentious personal information about a person, we most certainly do require a much higher standard of sourcing than just "she happens to be glancingly mentioned in a couple of stray sources whose primary subject is other people who aren't her, while sources that actually are about her in any non-trivial depth completely and consistently fail to say anything about said claim whasoever". And the onus is on you to prove that either DW or The Economist did independently reverify the veracity of the claim through their own independent research, not on anybody else to prove that they didn't. It's not enough to just insist that DW and the Economist are both reliable sources, because so are the CBC and the Toronto Star and Xtra and Outsports — with the added bonus that the latter set of sources are by definition more authoritative on LGBT and/or Canadian topics than the former, and thus their lack of confirmation of a disputed claim about a possibly-LGBT Canadian carries more weight than sources with no special expertise in LGBT and/or Canadian topics happening to glancingly mention an uncorroborated claim about her gender status in sources that aren't about her. And even if you take the position that Stephanie Barrett is just in the closet about being transgender, then you need to know that Wikipedia is not a venue for outing people. The non-negotiable rule on here, whether you like it or not, is that living people cannot be described as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender on Wikipedia unless they are themselves out as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender — we are not a venue for involuntarily outing living people who have not already outed themselves, and that rule is not up for any discussion or debate. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times made an article about the gender question. --Shev123 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP: "The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons." It's a marginally acceptable source in some contexts, and a solid and preferred source in none. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)