Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ratnage Black


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Heather Ratnage Black

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is about a non-notable person. It is unreferenced and has been for over a year. It lacks aby content of note. It does note give any explainations about the life of the non-notable subject. Please share your opinions about the status of this page and indicate clearly whether we should "Keep", "Delete", or "Merge" the page with another. To give my opinion, I think we should Delete the page. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, there is one reference in the article, contrary to the nomination's statement of none. Did the nominator even bother to click on the link? (From the page's revision history, the link was existent prior to the nomination for deletion.) Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep – This deletion nomination is unconvincing and has false aspects to it. The nomination states that no references exist in the article, but there was one in place prior to the nomination (it's still there). Seems to be an instance of not even considering source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to commencing the nomination, to the point of not even checking sources already in the article. Let's not delete articles based upon false premises as a rationale for deletion. Better yet, perhaps at least consider the idea of improving the article! Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has two sources (not one, external links count) and she seems quite accomplished in winter sports. It needs improvement and more context, but that's not what deletion is for. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Apart from the RAF article, there is little evidence for the notability of the "RAF Skeleton Association" . Hence, to call it a prominent role is questionable. As for the above comments, I did click on the SkeletonSport web site, but did not see the subject in the pull-down menu. At this point I'm not convinced the article satisfies WP:GNG. The one reference is reliable but not independent. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the main reason for nomination is the complete lack of notability of the subject; it is about a woman who is in a bob-sleigh team - this is not enough to be notable. Secondly, the article has next to no content and has remained like this from the start. The fact that there is one reference, which shows some tenuous link to the subject, is still insufficient to show this subject as notable. No other references of note can be found, Northamerica1000; if I'd been able to find any I would have improved the article. It is a very clear non-article and should be deleted. I predict that, if left, it will be in the same state in 6 months time. Francis Hannaway (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete . Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing my opinion in light of Whpq's comments below re her competing in world championships. If she has done this she satisfies notability for sportspeople. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be clear, I don't see evidence of competing at the World Championships which is a single event, but rather competing at the World Cups which is the top level circuit. -- Whpq (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy, The coverage by the RAF does not appear to be significant. Subject presently does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER. If the subject later becomes involved in the Olympics the subject may eventually pass WP:ATHLETE, however as that is not presently the case the article maybe WP:TOOSOON; in the mean time the article can be userfied.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the main reason for nomination is the complete lack of notability of the subject; it is about a woman who is in a bob-sleigh team - this is not enough to be notable. Secondly, the article has next to no content and has remained like this from the start. The fact that there is one reference, which shows some tenuous link to the subject, is still insufficient to show this subject as notable. No other references of note can be found. It is a very clear non-article and should be deleted. I predict that, if left, it will be in the same state in 6 months time. Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Skeleton (sport), as mention of RAF Skeleton Association, adding the reference there; we can mention or not her name as appropriate. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The Keep arguments aren't merely threadbare, they bear little resemblance to any notability guideline. Given Northamerica1000's experience at AfD, his comments border on bad faith, since he himself does not seem to have examined the sources presented.  One of them comes from the RAF itself - and thus isn't an independent sources satisfying the GNG - and the other comes from the website of a weekly newspaper of a town of six thousand, which he knows well is not of the sort generally considered to satisfy WP:IRS ... even if it discussed the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, which a 95-word filler does not. The other Keep proponent seems confused over what the relevant guidelines require.  The GNG does not require multiple sources; it requires multiple citations from reliable, published, independent sources which discuss the subject in significant detail, which they do and are not.  As far as the subject's putative accomplishments in winter sports - an assertion for which Ego White Tray has provided no evidence in this past week - failing the GNG, WP:NSPORTS generally support the notability of athletes competing at the Olympics or at the world championships in their respective sports.  The RAF 2008 Bobsleigh, Luge and Skeleton Inter-Service Championships does not remotely cut it. A Google search turns up little beyond this article.  A G-News search turns up zilch.  She has not competed in national or international competition in her sport. There is no valid ground to retain this article.    Ravenswing   06:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Skeleton is a winter sport. Due to the climate the UK does not feature highly in these.  Even the national British Bob Skeleton Association remains a redlink.  The RAF Skeleton Association is presumably a club for Royal Air Force personnel intersted in the sport.  The subject may be a significnat figure in that club, but it is a NN club.  Result -  NN .  Conclusion: Delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I support the deletion of this article, the above is a somewhat strange statement given that Great Britain won the gold medal in women's skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not going to set down an opinion at this point, but will make some observations. As a soldier, Ratnage Black is not notable.  I cannot find general coverage about her beyond what has been presented.  The FIBT web site does not list her as an athlete, but it is unclear just how complete this database is.  I don't know if skeletonsport.com is a reliable source.  Ratnage Black's race record from that site would seem to indicate that she was competing at Skeleton World Cup events.  The World Cup circuit is the top level circuit, so if we could establish some reliable sourcing for competing in the 3 WC events in the 2002 season, I think we would establish inclusion under WP:NSPORT as an athlete competing at the top level of her sport. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It does appear that the FIBT database is either incomplete, or I am incompetent in using it. I cannot find a listing for Alex Coomber, a GB skeleton racer who won a silver medal at an FIBT World Championship.  So the lack of an entry in the FIBT database does not rule out Ratnage Black from having competed at WC events. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the FIBT doesn't carry results or rankings as far back as the 2002 season. This isn't a reliable source, but I don't doubt that the information is likely accurate.  Ratnage Black was ranked 30th of 33 in the 2002/3 World cup standings in Women's Skeleton. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although online reliable sources have not been found, the web pages I dug up do support the fact that Ratnage Black competed in Skeleton in World Cups. The World Cups is the top level circuit and thus meets WP:NSPORT.  Offline sources are acceptable, and likely exists. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will be happy to change my vote to Keep if you can provide reliable sources attesting to the same - either from the federation itself, or articles in reliable news media. We have no way of knowing whether these unaffiliated websites are accurate or not, but it's not as if we accept them in any other sport absent serious evidence of fact checking.   Ravenswing   23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - I agree that reliable sources are needed. The question is whether those sources are likely to exist.  The site web site for manufacturer of sleds used in the sport of skeleton is likely to have correct results, and so I take this as an indication that a search for offline / paper sources is could find such reliable sources.  -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If such sources are not produced, an article cannot be sustained until and unless they are.   Ravenswing   21:34, 19 August 2012 (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.