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. Consensus is that WP:GNG is met, and thus sports SNGs need not be considered. (non-admin closure)User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Leicester Mercury article on her, a few lines from the BBC here as well as a 2 minute video. I don't think it's enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG: multiple secondary independent sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already multiple independent sources (she's also mentioned in Tokyo Paralympic Games welcomes record number of LGBTQ athletes) and she's been a Paralympic athlete - I'd argue it's already enough to pass WP:GNG and we can pretty reasonably assume she's likely to receive further coverage in the future. NHCLS (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands, the subject has four good sources, two from the BBC[1][2] and two from the Leicester Mercury[3][4]. Note that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. per WP:GNG so these count as two towards passing GNG (which technically counts as multiple). Also note that all four articles are from the period of July-August 2021 and that GNG requires that the subject has [..] attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. The source from nbsnews.com[5] is a trivial mention and should not go towards GNG. Regarding the statement that we can pretty reasonably assume she's likely to receive further coverage in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystalball per WP:CRYSTALBALL and either the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG now or she doesn't. Alvaldi (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Your reasoning says the person meets GNG, but only not because of the section “Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time”. However within that section I don’t read something that is in line with this article. That section is mainly written for event, “Brief bursts of news coverage”, WP1event. For a person 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.” And as pointed out above; that is not the case. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOlympic Actually it is exactly the case. This is clearly a BLP1E case, all the press coverage is in relation to the recent Paralympic Games. In addition most of the sources are either routine or simply mentions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is more press coverage during the Paralympics, that is the reason of >80% of the Paralympic articles. With that reason also all medalist at most recent Games would not be notable according to you. And it is not a case for 1 event. That would be the case if all the woth mentioning stuff would be related to the 2020 Paralympics, and it s assumed she will not become notable in another event. The the sources are writing about her for instance also about her 2018 European Championships, 2019 World Championships winning bronze, and winning a 2020 award. So no, she it not only notable for the Paralympics. A redirect to the 2020 Paralympics would not be appropriate for her. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To exaggerate (yes I know!), but with your reasoning, Amber Merritt that became a good article here (and there might be even better examples) should be removed as it has only reliable sources of that Paralympic period in 2012. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NBCNews.com link Tokyo Paralympic Games welcomes record number of LGBTQ athletes is mentioned twice above for its coverage. It mentions her only once: As with the Summer Olympics, the majority of openly LGBTQ Paralympians are women, including four members of Great Britain’s women’s wheelchair basketball team — Jude Hamer, Robyn Love, Lucy Robinson and Laurie Williams. That is a trivial mention.—Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the synthesis of the facts and context in which she is mentioned in the NBC News source and other sources, e.g. LGBTQ Paralympians win in Tokyo (Philadelphia Gay News, 2021), Paralympics to see record number of openly LGBTQ+ athletes compete (GCN, 2021) that is WP:SECONDARY and therefore does not appear to be trivial in the way described in the guideline, e.g. footnote 7 of WP:BASICNon-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail, or as compared to a simple listing like this: Who is competing for Team GB at the Paralympic Games 2020? (The Scotsman, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG without multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. Only BBC and Leicester Mercury have been identified. GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected, not merely a couple. Does not meet SNGs WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NOLYMPICS, which only presumes notability of Paralympic medal winners. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG's requirements of "multiple sources", "independent of the subject", and "significant coverage". Respondent above me quotes one thing then claims the opposite. Looks like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to me, which is a bit troubling, given the topic. Always best just to stick to the facts and the policies. gidonb (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sustained coverage over a significant period of time to pass WP:GNG. While the subject does have four good articles from two publications, the general notability guideline states that coverage should be over a sufficiently significant period of time per WP:SUSTAINED. These four articles are all from July and August 2021, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NOTBLP1E. She had a substantial role in an encyclopedic event. pburka (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What "substantial role"? She played 3/6 matches for a team that finished 4th outta 5 in the group stage, lost their quarterfinal and finished 7th. No notability is gained from competing in the Paralympics. Dougal18 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her role was sufficiently substantial that it was covered in multiple reliable sources. We keep articles about Olympic athletes based purely on the assumption that they'll have sigcov, but most never get as much coverage as this paralympian. pburka (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka, we have an SNG for the Olympics because the Olympics are viewed as a substantially important sporting event to confer notability. The Paralympic Games do not enjoy the same status. As there is no SNG, our default policy is GNG. Given that all the press is within a month of each other, how does this topic pass WP:SUSTAINED? It doesn't. Therefore WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS does apply, and the topic fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 4meter4, I tried to respond to this question below, with a reference to what appears to be the concern of WP:SUSTAINED with regard to 'brief bursts of news coverage' about a single event; this is not WP:BLP1E, including because Robinson is covered for more than one event, and she is not low-profile. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. They don't. The sources describe her career up to that date, as well as providing substantial biographical information.
Counter-view. They do. Subject lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. No one wrote on her until this one event. If she were notable for another event, there would be earlier coverage of that event in independent RS of those events. Taking the history of someone once they do one thing that is notable doesn't confer notability on past events covered in a biographical profile.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. She's an international athlete competing at the highest level of her sport, so she's not low-profile.
Counter-view. She is an athlete that only received coverage during this one international event. She may or may not receive further coverage depending on whether she continues to compete in high profile events. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't assume that this will happen. WP:TOOSOON applies. 4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The 2020/2021 Paralympics are significant and her role is well documented.
BLP1E requires that all three of these conditions be met, and she doesn't meet any of them, so it's not a BLP1E. pburka (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-view. She is a low profile and low performing para-Olympic athlete that did not achieve anything significant within her field. She played 3/6 matches for a team that finished 4th outta 5 in the group stage, lost their quarterfinal and finished 7th. The ParaOlympics lack an NSPORT SNG because they do not inherently confer notability on their participants.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed above, these are not 'briefs bursts of news coverage' about a single event, due to the in-depth coverage of her and her past career, as well as the WP:SECONDARY commentary about the significance of her participation. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr how exactly? The earlier coverage is from sources too closely connected with the subject to be considered independent (like her university). I'm not seeing evidence of SUSTAINED significant coverage in independent sources.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to respond above, i.e. this is not WP:BLP1E, the WP:SIGCOV has already been discussed. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr yes I saw that. But the sources you provided above to meet SIGCOV are all within a month of each other. SUSTAINED requires a subject have coverage across time. This generally means over multiple years in the way we interpret at AFD. A flurry of coverage in the news within a month of each other is generally condensed to count as only a single source of evidence towards meeting GNG; no matter how many refs are found in that window. We need two additional quality independent RS that fall outside of that time period (preferably a year or more earlier). Otherwsie WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E apply.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS appears to support a standalone artcle, e.g. it states, In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the in-depth coverage and WP:SECONDARY context from multiple independent and reliable news sources allows the encyclopedic context to be created for this article. This is not the 'breaking news' that this policy warns against, because the news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event. And WP:BLP1E is focused on avoiding articles on low-profile individuals, which Robinson is not, and she is also not covered only for one event, so the concerns of this guideline do not apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some more sources, including a full length article about her from 2018 about her gold medal win in the IWBF U24 European tournament. There's also this which I was unable to fit in. This should hopefully satisfy arguments about WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINEDCiphriusKane (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning gold in a U24 (!) 3 team championship and being nominated for a Pride of Charnwood Award doesn't make anyone notable. I don't see why unnotable "achievements" should be lumped together to argue a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not a subjective assessment, because it is based on the existence of sources that support inclusion per the guidelines and policies. The recently added 2018 news article features Robinson in the headline and the article, includes biographical information about her, and further supports her notability for inclusion per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CiphriusKane This is a good start. However, the Loughborough Echo is a very local newspaper from where the subject and her athletic club reside. As such, it lacks independence and can not be used to surpass WP:SUSTAINED concerns. If we can locate even one source from a major regional paper with similar coverage I would be happy to change my vote.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the factors identified in the guidelines and policies, as discussed in the explanatory supplement WP:INDEPENDENT, a local newspaper does not appear to lose independence simply by being local. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr Yes it does. Per policy at WP:AUD we can reasonably infer that local coverage isn't notable precisely because local stories are targeted to a local audience which doesn't give them enough distance from their community to establish independence or notability for encyclopedic purposes. I'll also point out that this is the normal critique of local news sources at AFD for years. There is a lot of precedent here and you are advocating a novel point of view. 4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that WP:AUD applies but we should note that it mainly states that an article can not be solely sourced by local sources and that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. The subject already has a national source from the BBC. Alvaldi (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that WP:AUD is based around the concept of indiscrimination found at Wikipedia:Independent sources#Relationship to notability; which does apply in all AFDs, including this one. Local new coverage is inherently indiscriminate in their coverage as they cover topics with specifically local interest, but not necessarily wider interest and significance. In order to prove SUSTAINED we need to see SUSTAINED coverage in sources with a wider target audience. That would seem to be the best interpretation of the spirit of our policies. Otherwise we are WP:Wikilawyering to get around what our policies are meant to uphold.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments for deletion have become severely strained. At first it was that notability guidelines were not met. As the number of in-depth sources increased to the point that it became hard to deny that GNG is superficially met, the argument shifted to a lack of sustained coverage. But how could we expect someone who recently became notable to ever already evince sustained coverage? It cannot be right that I'm forbidden from making reasonable guesses about the probability that this person will receive in-depth coverage in the future when the policy specifically requires that the person "remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". No argument has been made that this person is and is likely to remain a low profile individual, which is an explicit requirement of WP:SUSTAINED. By the time the deletion rationale is that one of the sources is too geographically proximate to the area that the subject is from, I'm satisfied that GNG is met. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved and can now be shown that she has the sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 00:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved since nomination and she passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NBASIC is met and, as others have said, the claim that local media coverage isn't independent is a pretty tenuous rationale for deletion. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly enough coverage and sourcing for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm puzzled by the lengths people are going to to try to delete this article. Multiple articles in the BBC establish notability per WP:GNG. Coverage is over three years so clearly WP:SUSTAINED is met. There is no reason why local news can't count for establishing notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly WP:GNG has been met. Seany91 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.