Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Current

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Current

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There is some trivial coverage such as [1] and [2] but nothing significant Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep this is what I find. [3], [4]. Should be enough for a weak keep.
Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, both are routine coverage. Now if more sources that are routine are found, perhaps it goes into keep territory. How many sources that are routine are needed ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what are we talking about, this athlete was just a member of the world championships team in august and the pan am team in chile right now. She has her own page on the Team Canada Olympics site? How could this possibly not be kept 123456789athletics (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

check under the external links, she has recognition by the world athletes governing body for a top 8 placement (highly significant in the athletes realm) and she has her own olympics page. 123456789athletics (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted !keep, more sources would help, but doesn't change anything. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's also this one already in the article and others from the The London Free Press. And other mentions such at [5] and interviews such as [6]. As for WP:ROUTINE it doesn't extend to athletes. It's about Events, and it's why we don't write a 10 Wikipedia articles for this weeks 10 Premier League matches. Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2023 (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.