Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacia Joseph

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, further sourcing has been added to the article during the discussion which appears to address the main concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacia Joseph

Stacia Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Ficaia (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per
  WP:BEFORE work as I found this, this and this in seconds. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The last two are primary sources and do not go towards
  WP:GNG, which the subject has to pass. The first one is significant coverage but not enough on its own. Alvaldi (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Lugnuts. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  primary sources that do not go towards GNG which requires multiple sources. Alvaldi (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep no
  WP:BEFORE has been done, on a two minute search, I've already found two decent sources and added them. Sure more exist, if people bothered to look- something I will continue to do when I have time, but which neither Ficaia or Alvaldi have given evidence of doing themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question Does anyone know if one or more Australian newspapers have a freely accessible newspaper archive? Most newspaper articles from around 2009 don't show up on Google searches. I imagine that there would be some content about her in archived newspapers from the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 To clarify, I did do a search and came up with the same three sources as Lugnuts. The Daily Telepraph article that is a significant source, the Waverley Hockey Club article that is a primary source and the Victorian Institute of Sport article that is also a primary source. I also found a bunch of brief mentions such as [1][2][3] that are not significant coverage. If you have better luck in finding significant sources then I am more than happy to change my !vote to keep. Alvaldi (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is enough RS to justify the page (passes
  WP:SPORTBASIC). However, to be fair, there isn't a lot: I searched via news databases Newsbank, ProQuest and the WikiLibrary (all wider and deeper than Google) as well as Google, and didn't find any new RSs. Cabrils (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]