Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Barrett


 * 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)

Stephanie Barrett

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Keep Indeed we can have articles for any and all Olympic athletes, per policy; NOLYMPICS to be specific. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 *  Speedy keep. For better or worse, we presume notability for all Olympians. pburka (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * and, 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:
 * and
 * JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A trans woman taking a place at the Olympics is going to be controversial and hence indisputably notable.Dejvid (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The nominator has buried the lede by focusing on “we don’t cover all Olympians” (false) rather than “this athlete is not yet an Olympian” (true) as the rationale. I think the strongest rationale for deletion is WP:CRYSTALBALL, especially since COVID makes the next Olympics less certain. However, I am still in favor of a keep (which I suppose would be per GNG); the profile in the Toronto Star and her Lausanne record tie seem like enough to keep the article for now, especially since she is a presumed imminent Olympian. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Will pass WP:NOLYMPICS in less than a month and also passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether you agree with it or not, we do have a rule that competing at the Olympics is "inherently" notable in and of itself, and that rule is not that the person's appearance at the Olympics has to be historical and cannot be current or imminent. If something happens in the next few weeks to remove the Olympics from her notability claim, such as the entire event being completely cancelled at the last minute due to the emergence of a new vaccine-proof COVID variant and thus never happening at all, then we can revisit this when that time comes — but the semantic difference between a "past" Olympian and a person who's competing in an Olympics that are just two weeks away, and thus will be a "past" Olympian by August, is not the hook to hang a deletion argument on in the meantime. And if your real problem is the claims about her gender identity that have been getting inserted into the article without legitimate sourcing for them, we have other ways (the page has already been semi-protected!) to deal with those. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is no rule that competing in the Olympics is inherently notable; NSPORT specifically requires any subject meeting a sport-specific guideline to also meet GNG since the SSGs only presume (GNG-based) notability. See NSPORT FAQs #1, 2, and 5, which include the statements:
 * and
 * JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the FAQ at the top of WP:ATHLETE, which WP:NOLYMPICS is a subsection of, the Wikipedia community consensus is pretty clear that passing any of the sports-specific notability guidelines is not an automatic notability pass. It only means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The subject still has to been shown that it has said coverage for its article to be kept. Below are the related FAQ sections from WP:ATHLETE. Right now, I'm only seeing this article in the Toronto Star that can be considered significant coverage. Are there any more significant sources on the subject? Alvaldi (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The only significant coverage I can find on the subject is the Toronto Star article from 5 July 2021. Even if a few significant article would be written this month the subject would still fail GNG as it requires that the coverage is over a substantial amount of time, not just a brief blurb of headlines. It should be noted than all of the above !votes go against the Wikipedia community consensus by 1. claiming that the subject passes WP:GNG without pointing to any sources to back that up 2. state that the subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS (which she doesn't) and thus should be kept but leaving out the fact even if the subject passed WP:NOLYMPICS she would still have to pass GNG as is clearly stated in WP:ATHLETE 3. state that she might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete We have never had consistent agreement on the relationship between the athletics SNGs and the GNG. Myself, I would prefer to say that both must be met for athletes, but if we had a more sensible /SNG, such as the French standard of being in the top 5 in the Olympic results, then I'd say that such a SNG would be enough.  Alvaldi is correct in emphasising that the basic principle is WP:NOT DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The GNG is just one part of the guidelines interpreting it, as is the SNG; they not infrequently give incompatible results, which requires us to  use our judgment case by case. IMy own judgment is thatthis is a case of TOO SOON.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep With the Star article, along with this and this, the latter mentioning equalling the Canadian record, and this too, the article should pass WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Star article, as has been stated above, is a very good source and the economist.com article is intriguing but is behind a paywall so it is difficult to assess whether it is significant coverage or a trivial one. You wouldn't happen to have access to the rest of the Economist article? The archysport.com article is a routine announcement on what looks like a fairly trivial website (Their Facebook page has 31 followers while the Twitter page has 69) and the article on Ontario Association of Archers would constitute as a primary source as it is not independent of the subject. Note that the three secondary sources are all from a span of under 20 days so that does not constitute as WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, I don't have access to the full article. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * There have been so many sources bandied about, I thought it would be helpful to summarize them. [EDIT: Last updated with new sources Jul 23 5pmEST]


 * [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)
 * 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. 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)
 * delete passes 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)
 * Comment I have added a couple of sources and  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note: Barrett has now officially competed at the 2020 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment. If we want to have a discussion about changing the way we treat Olympic athletes in general, this isn't the right venue for it. I've never seen a verifiable Olympic athlete deleted at AfD before, and it would reflect poorly on this project if the first Olympian we did delete was a woman from a marginalized group. pburka (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep Based on the source table above, there are already multiple sources giving Barrett significant coverage, which is enough to pass WP:GNG regardless of the SNG. (And she has competed in the Olympics now, so she passes the SNG too.) Regardless of whether or not all Olympic competitors are notable, an Olympian who's been profiled in her country's largest newspaper certainly is. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea how this is not a speedy keep, given they have now competed in the Olympics. And now that the basis for User:Tallard's completely unnecessary and time-wasting AFD are gone, I don't know why they haven't at least had the grace to withdraw the nomination. Next time they want to nominate an Olympian on a debatable technicality after athletes have already started arriving for the games, perhaps they should WP:NORUSH and wait until the event. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 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, So  Why  19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, and this can be closed already. BD2412  T 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG per above table and discussion, passes NOLYMPICS, and like BD2412 I see no reason why this can't be closed by the next mop-haver to show up here casualdejekyll (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this doesn't seem like the place to fight notability guidelines. If you have a problem with the notability guidelines, there are better places to suggest changes. Currently this page meets notability guidelines for Olympic athletes, if they change in the future then this could be renominated. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep. There are loads of articles on female archers who competed at this year's Olympics, all of similar length, yet only this article was nominated... There's an agenda there. Furius (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2021 (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.