Deletion of Stephanie Barrett

Comment: Per the FAQ at the top of , which  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 . 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 .{{tq2|'''Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?''''''A2:''' The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)}}{{tq2|'''Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?''''''A2:''' No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)}}{{tq2|'''Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?''''''A3:''' No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)}} Right now, I'm only seeing https://www.thestar.com/sports/olympics/2021/07/05/olympic-archer-stephanie-barrett-is-pulling-the-strings-on-a-real-life-fantasy-story.html this article in the Toronto Star that can be considered significant coverage. Are there any more significant sources on the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE||WP:NOLYMPICS||WP:GNG||WP:ATHLETE)

Comment: Fails  due to lack of significant coverage. The only significant coverage I can find on the subject is the https://www.thestar.com/sports/olympics/2021/07/05/olympic-archer-stephanie-barrett-is-pulling-the-strings-on-a-real-life-fantasy-story.html 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 WP:!VOTE|!votes go against the Wikipedia community consensus by '''1.''' claiming that the subject passes  without pointing to any sources to back that up '''2.''' state that the subject passes  (which she doesn't) and thus should be kept but leaving out the fact even if the subject passed  she would still have to pass GNG as is clearly stated in  '''3.''' state that she might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOLYMPICS||WP:NOLYMPICS||WP:ATHLETE||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: Will pass  in less than a month and also passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOLYMPICS||WP:GNG)