Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination)

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. Nominator, having written WP:NRODEO, presumably knows what they are about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Fryar

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

First AfD was not reviewed by members of Wikiproject Equine. This individual is completely non-notable... NRODEO is a guide, not a policy that trumps GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if she'd won the NFR, she'd be notable, but she just qualified, which a lot of people do. It's like competing on America's Got Talent versus winning the million dollars. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual is non-notable. I am also from wiki project equine and knowledgeable about rodeo. One qualification for the NFR is non-notable in this case. NRODEO does not make notable here. If she was notable, perhaps the article would not be a few sentence stub. There are not enough sources or achievements. GNG is not met and trying to twist the definition does not make it so. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NRODEO. While it is correct that it does not trump GNG, it is a guideline that creates a presumption. Therefore we presume sources exist unless given a valid reason otherwise. Her qualification was 9 years ago. Online, that is a long time. A Google search for "2008 National Finals Rodeo" and "2008 NFR" yields only about 3,500 collective results results while a search for "2016 National Finals Rodeo" and "2016 NFR" collectively yields about 25,000 collective results. I think the presumption is not just the coverage received by competing at the NFR, but the results that got a cowboy/cowgirl there (e.g., the rodeos they won that season and the coverage in newspapers and the like that those wins produced). Is anyone really going to go to the medium-sized town newspaper archives from a decade ago to determine if there is coverage? No. If this were for a 2015 or 2016 qualifier, I would think a show cause would be fair. But due to the age of this subjects top athletic prime, I think we need to have the presumption carry weight. And as a reminder, the community of editors came up with the guideline to give the presumption - the stance that this is on par to competing on America's Got Talent and only winners are notable goes directly against what the editors established as the guideline. GNG does trump, but when GNG is not able to be reasonable assessed, as is the case here, then we should follow the wishes of the community of editors and keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After my comment above, I decided to research this a bit further. Rodeo season runs Oct-Sept with the exception of the NFR in Dec. Winning the Caldwell Nights Rodeo produced this result that is in the article [1]. I think that is a quality source. So I checked the rodeo association archives to see what else she won the year she qualifier for the NFR:

Texas Circuit Finals [2]
Mesquite, TX [3]
Stephenville, TX [4]
Pecos, TX [5]
Window Rock, AZ [6]
Rock Springs, WY [7]
Abilene, KS [8]
Bakersfield, CA [9]
San Bernardino, CA [10]

So there were a total of ten wins that season (counting Caldwell). If Caldwell produced the result that we can find, I think we can presume at least some of these other rodeos would produce similar results if someone whet through the local newspaper archives. Also, the Texas Circuit Finals and the Window Rock, AZ rodeo had prize funds similar to Caldwell, so if nothing else we can be confident that three sources exist - one for each of those rodeos. We have the presumption and the facts line up that the sources exist. RonSigPi (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RonSigPi, Guess what? I wrote much of what is now at NRODEO, shepherded through the changes, and I am quite familiar with the topic of rodeo. I actually am generally an inclusionist, but I really didn't see significant coverage here when I did my WP:BEFORE. Here's what we have:

She qualified for the NFR once, nine years ago, and placed 10th. She's done nothing since.
While I agree that this source fits the standard of "significant coverage in a third-party source independent of the subject", that's not quite enough, standing alone. You may want to read WP:HEY because, bottom line, the article in its present state is not going to cut it. If she had been covered -- say, articles like "favored person's horse tripped and she came in 10th, what a tragedy", that might be coverage sufficient to convey notability. Or, if she has articles profiling her in a "Barrel Racing News" magazine, that would help too. Or if she'd qualified 5 years in a row -- or ... something more!
Unfortunately, "We can probably find sources somewhere, someday, and until then, we keep" is, sad to say, not what works at AfD, at least for people in the modern age (for a pre-google age person who was famous in, say, the 1960s, one or two articles plus stats might cut it, but not in the 2000s).
While the NSPORTS "qualifying for the highest national-level event" is a well-known standard across multiple sports, GNG still must be met. WP:N is policy; NRODEO is a guideline--it explains to the uninitiated editor which rodeos are considered the nationally significant ones.
For notability, passing mentions in statistics charts don't cut it. The wnba stats verify information, but they do not, even collectively, get you to "Significant coverage" -- which "is more than a trivial mention". (per GNG: "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material")
Compare to her father's article that you worked on, note I did NOT AfD it, because though it is a poor-quality stub, his accomplishments qualify, and there is enough evidence that there is more coverage to be found.
WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the "if". So the burden is on you to find the actual source material -- the number of qualifying wins are irrelevant, the issue is if these wins got enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article per GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." -- discussion may prove otherwise.
There are few hits for Fryar -- the only thing I found at WP:BEFORE that is more that a stats sheet is this commercial endorsement that is, at best, pretty weak. When you search "Wrangler NFR" and "Stephanie Fryar" and Barrel racing (which I needed to do to filter out all the other people named Stephanie Fryar), I got 188 hits, most of which were lists of stats. Now if you want to check my search results and see if you have significant coverage , go for it. My mind can be changed if you find more sources like the Caldwell news piece, but so far, I'm not convinced. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (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.