Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine (Katie) Ford


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Katharine (Katie) Ford

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An IP nominated this for speedy deletion with the words "Subject of the article (probably also its author, see the page history) is not notable. She cycled across America in a race, but was not even the youngest person to do this (note "youngest ever British"), not that that would make her notable." I declined to execute a speedy deletion on that basis, since there is an assertion of notability. However, there are no references and the notability claim is insufficient to merit an article. Prod was contested in December by an IP without explanation. BencherliteTalk 15:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC) WikiProject Cycling notified BencherliteTalk 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Without voting either way, what would constitute the highest level of non-professional competition in the sport of cycling? What would she have to compete in to meet this requirement of WP:ATHLETE?  The article has very little information, but if multi-day races of this sort are the highest level of non-professional competition, then she would be notable under WP:ATHLETE and should be kept.  If this race does not meet that requirement, obviously she is subject to deletion unless reliable third party sources can be found to establish notability independent of this race. And while writing about yourself is not encouraged, WP:COI does not automatically make the person non-notable; if the IP editor is correct that the author is the subject of the article, that itself does not justify deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not relying on any COI as a ground for deletion. BencherliteTalk 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I wasn't saying you were, but that was in response to the comment by the IP that you quoted, which suggested COI is grounds to delete. I was responding to his comment, which implied COI supports deletion, not saying that was your argument. Sorry if it wasn't clear I was responding to the text you quoted by the IP editor. :-) Theseeker4 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I ought to have said that I realised that you were making the distinction between me and the IP's argument, but that I was making the comment for the benefit of those who came along later. BencherliteTalk 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Granted, a bicycle ride across a continent is a feat that most of us can't accomplish, but are all the competitors in all marathon races inherently notable? In this case, I don't see a source for the statements that she was the first Scottish female cyclist, or the "youngest ever British female cyclist" to complete the RAAM, and I don't know that that would make her more notable than any of the other competitors. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - On general notabilty grounds, I could find no evidence for notability as I could not find any coverage. The only item of significance was the self-published information about the cycling team from here which includes the claims mentioned above.  But of course this isn't a reliable source.  With respect to looking at the guidelines for athletes, the criteron of competing at the top of her sport is not satisfied.  There is a presumption that competing at the top level of her sport means she has risen above others at lower levels to compete at the pinnacle of her sport.  With respect to the Race Across America, the entry requirements for teams does not require any qualifying requirements.  In other words, there is nothing about the team race that would distinguish any entrant as notable, as the fact that they are entered only demonstrates that they entered the race and nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While her achievment is great, she is by no means the first to do it and I cannot see any independent reliable source coverage of the event. JulesH (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. The author, who may or may not also be the subject, has tried to increase validity of the article by including more references, all of which I consider to be trustworthy, and rather than deleting the article purerly because of it's lack of content I think the author should be contacted and encouraged to increase the content. If i had to guess I would say that the author is not even aware of this debate. I believe the subject of the article is likely to become of Great Britains most promising cyclists and this articles allows the general public to track her performance. It's currently the cycling 'off season' in the UK so I suggest leaving the article until the subject has competed in several more races, thus giving the author more chance to assert the subjects notibility. - 22/01/09 - User: Anon - 23:09 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you become notable in the future of course you can have an article then, but we'll leave it to impartial third-party authors and editors to decide if and when that time comes. Please note that weighing in to oppose deletion from a Durham University proxy doesn't help your case! 79.64.206.182 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (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.