Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjersti Bø

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. The arguments laid out here that the topic isn't salvageable due to the inadequacy of the sources presented and the fact that the subject is no longer active in sports. If people insist on draftification, they can ask at WP:REFUND, but here, I don't see a compelling enough argument in favour of it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kjersti Bø

[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)

Skiing doesn't have an SNG to use as a rough guide to notability, so we have to go by WP:GNG, per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have done a reasonably thorough BEFORE search (for an English speaker), and I have found no in-depth sources about the subject. There were only trivial mentions and listings on sports statistics pages. As she is now retired after a very brief career, it is unlikely that any further in-depth sources will emerge. Per SPORTCRIT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources...is not sufficient to establish notability; we cannot maintain this article on the basis of stat pages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mere mentions in a few news outlets with no in-depth or wide coverage. It does not appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON since the subject retired after a short career. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article looks very raw and should be incubated and developed more in the draftspace--Chartwind (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chartwind, the woman has retired. It is incredibly unlikely that any further sources will be written about her athletic career, making a move to draftspace pointless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PMC. Understood and also it sounds probably logical but every time I'm doubt, I prefer to give it a chance and let see what more experienced users related to the particular project (in this case - Norwegian sports) might tell about it. I believe that in certain cases, it doesn't hurt draftspace. I also suggest to bring people related to the Norwegian sports (by expanding this discussion in the other related discussions) and see what they have to say about it.--Chartwind (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chartwind, I would argue that draftification of articles that are not likely to develop new sources does cause a certain amount of harm, in terms of wasted volunteer time/attention. The most efficient outcome of a move to draft in this case is that the deletion is simply postponed for 6 months until someone tags it as G13 for an admin to assess and delete it. But if any humans edit it for any reason during that time (even to add whitespace), the deletion is postponed, and the content lurches around zombie-like until someone gets annoyed and takes it to MfD, which again is an expenditure of time that wouldn't have happened if the article had simply been deleted at AfD. If the subject were still skiing professionally, I'd be happy to go along with a move to draftspace, since more sources might develop, but in this case (and all cases where sources are unlikely to develop), there's very little potential benefit.

The article has been deletion-sorted under sports and Norway (there's no skiing-specific delsort option), but if you wish to advertise it elsewhere, by all means bring more people into the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's not be too hasty. It looks to me as if the article could be usefully expanded on the basis of info from Norwegian sites, e.g. [1] and several others which mention how she was placed in events.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple statistics about placement in events are not sufficient, per SPORTCRIT, as mentioned above. There needs to be in-depth coverage of the athlete in reliable secondary sources. The article you mentioned is an interview published on the website of a sports-fitness non-profit - hardly a high-quality broad-audience publication, and interviews are generally considered primary rather than secondary sources for the purpose of indicating notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately a WP:MILL skier with no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Now that she is retired, she is extremely unlikely to become notable in the future. CThomas³ (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2020 (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.