Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Poleschuk

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!} 01:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Poleschuk

[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:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 gnews hit and only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Not much of anything found [1] has a brief mention. This interview [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She finished 19th at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and got some media attention here, but hardly anything. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All links to ProQuest. I think this individual meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. There's some standard sports interview articles that also confirms background details and provides some depth of secondary coverage [3][4]. There are dozens of articles with brief coverage about sporting achievements on ProQuest. Third place (podium finish) at a World Cup event, 2010. [5][6]. Third place finish in Canadian Skiing Championship event [7]. First place in one event at "Pontiac GMC cup" (canadian ski event), 2006, [8], third place in a different event at that cup [9]. Another win in an earlier year[10], third place yet another year[11]. —siro χ o 04:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links are interviews that contain some background but really don't have the depth to counter the rather routine "human interest" nature of the pieces. All of the other links are to passing mentions in routine event recaps and contribute nothing to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Per my argument above. I do not see GNG being met.

JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new coverage found.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @JoelleJay, Oaktree b, Siroxo, and LibStar: A couple of decent-looking sources I located on Newspapers.com, I think these are different than the ones linked above: The Province, The Gazette, The Vancouver Sun, and Calgary Herald. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those in the second list look fine, I can't open the ProQuest ones on my vpn. I'll change my !Vote. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources above, we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 7 September 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.