Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Kingsbury


 * 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. Per the detailed analysis by several editors, subject fails the criteria of NTRACK, and doesn't otherwise have enough coverage to pass GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Molly Kingsbury

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of GNG. Also fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  talk  01:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  <sub style="color:blue">talk  01:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. <b style="color:red">We</b><b style="color:orange">Are</b><b style="color:blue">All</b> Here  <sub style="color:blue">talk  01:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NTRACK #2. ref. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NTRACK with regard to the commonwealth games says Individual events in these championships must contain several heats. There were no heats that I'm aware of. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopening per the request of an editor who was about to comment
 * Delete Fails Sportscrit, fails gng.Jacona (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, she's a junior, fails ntrack. Szzuk (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, possibly WP:A7. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - according to the basic criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria the athlete should have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). The Commonwealth Games meets this requirement of a major international sports event at the highest level. MurielMary (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @MurielMary I disagree. The Commonwealth Games are not at the highest level. All countries can enter athletes they would like and there is no restriction to being entered (unlike the Olympics, in which you need to qualify). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sportsfan the notability guidelines for athletics also state: "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons)." Kingsbury finished in the top 8 at the Commonwealth Games. MurielMary (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @MurielMary Again your point is moot. "Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" - the event she competed in had less than 8 competitors and did not have more than one round. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NTRACK #2, which explicitly lists the Commonwealth Games as meeting the criteria. If people feel that isn't really the case, they can discuss it at the appropriate WikiProject to have it removed. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep NTRACK does indeed include the Commonwealth Games, I stand corrected; Kingsbury passes NTRACK.Jacona (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the one who says GNG trumps all, yet when article fails GNG you vote keep? How hypocritical is that? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. If an article meets gng, it's generally good. A sport-specific criterion like WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NTRACK etc can certainly override it for establishing notability. I don't see that sport-specific criteria would remove notability from an otherwise notable subject. Do you? Jacona (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you have in the past said GNG overrides sport-specific criterion. So which one is right? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They must meet one or the other. I think you know that. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Smartyllama. At least in this article it is plausible that the nominator made an effort to perform WP:BEFORE. There have been many nominations recently showing a complete lack of diligence, a complete disrespect for the time of the community, and a tremendous WP:BIAS against non-English (particularly Asian) athletes. This article is, in my opinion, worthy of debate. It's the sort of article we should be discussing, not those of athletes legendary in their home countries. And Sportsfan 1234, you've nominated several of those athletes.Jacona (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for explicitly failing WP:NTRACK. The rule is as follows: [Must have] finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields [in Commonwealth Games, etc]. Yet, the subject of the article, as the article itself informs us, "was selected for the England team for the 2018 Commonwealth Games," and that "was her first appearance at a senior event." Emphasis added. Try as we might (or even desire, since her courage is admirable), the subject does not meet the notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I hate to say it, but to do otherwise would be because I like her, rather in line with the notability setup. It's given above, but in a (supposedly) clearer breakdown


 * Q1) Did she compete in either the Olympics or the relevant world championships? A - No
 * Q2) Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships? A - Yes
 * Q3) Did those events contain either several heats or extended fields? A - No
 * Without either Q1 or Q2 and Q3 being Yes, it fails. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NTRACK as she has finished in sixth (therefore top 8) in a Commonwealth Games. This looks quite clear to me. I don't know why there is debate. Ross-c (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * because her event only had 7 competitors at her level - no heats, it was directly in a final, as far as the beeb indicates. The event needs either a big field (probably 15+) or heats. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - where is that requirement listed in WP:NTRACK???? Ross-c (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" @Ross-c Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I read that as characterising the games (e.g. Commonwealth Games) as a whole, not in excluding exceptional events within them. Typically, events in the Commonwealth Games have heats etc. Otherwise, you could try and remove a gold medalist. Ross-c (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could be mis-interpreting your argument, in which case forgive me, but that would seem to cause case disparity - some events (and the athletes within them) would have a much easier ride, just because most other events within the overall competition had heats etc. To me the "individual events within this competition" clarifies that the heats/fields are additional requirements binding events within the given competitions.
 * With regards to this argument wiping out medalists who fell afoul of the heats, point 3 would seem to cover them (Top 3 of other major senior level competitions, which the Commonwealth events that didn't fall into the general Commonwealth coverage would seem to be). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it as did Ross-c, but I understand Nosebagbears point as well. I believe that if we go through history at major events, even in the Olympics we will find some cases where there were events that didn't have multiple heats. I believe we still consider the winners notable because the stature of the games, and I think that is what the guideline is trying to convey.Jacona (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (column reset) - We do indeed consider those in the Olympic/World Championships notable, irrespective of heat status. Presumably this is primarily because of game stature, though it might also be because for the Olympics, at least, the qualification level to enter is much higher, regardless of country. Commonwealth deliberately wasn't put in that top group, which would seem to indicate it wasn't supposed to have a "stature is sufficient" case. I must note of course that I am far from a WP:NTRACK expert - it's probably only the second or third time I've used it as a justification (either way), let alone was involved in the RFC that created them. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and Notability (sports). There is a lack of notability because of a lack of sourcing. To me there is something wrong with the idea of supporting the creation (or the keeping) of an undersourced WP:BLP using mainly primary sources that produces a stub pseudo biography. "Just" making an appearance at a national or international event, leading to a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, is dependant on Verifiability and Reliable sources. Primary sources do not advance notability so secondary sources are required. Usually placing 4th or 6th place may create some immediate fame but notability is not fleeting or passing. Only the individual, family, team members, or Wikiprojects will remember someone placing 4th or 6th. This seems to be forgotten sometimes in a quest to have all possible subjects covered on Wikipedia. This subject has three references and two are primary with one (BBC) secondary for the one event. This lack of sourcing fails several instances of the "Five pillars": "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons", so these watered down exemptions ("it fails several policies or guidelines but passes WP:NTRACK so we should keep") should not matter. Otr500 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find any sources after trying for quite awhile so fails WP:GNG and subsequently also fails WP:NTRACK. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.