Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Kurtimah

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Marissa Kurtimah}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Marissa Kurtimah}})

Nominated by {{user|99.142.64.153}} for the following reason:

{{tqb|I feel she should be deleted because I couldn't find any sources that mention her competing in any Olympic events and she doesn't seem to have any coverage from local events either. I don't think this article should exist just because she was nominated for an Olympic team.}}

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:I added several sources that cover high school and collegiate track accomplishments, some of which I added to the article. Nnev66 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Sierra Leone, and Canada. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. [https://olympic.ca/team-canada/marissa-kurtimah/ Her accomplishments] do not appear to satisfy WP:NTRACK, and a couple of short newspaper articles are little more than announcements from her hometown paper[https://www.guelphmercury.com/life/another-ofsaa-ribbon-for-kurtimah/article_626447ef-d9d4-57f3-b23b-07c97d6693c5.html] or university-related,[https://missouristatebears.com/news/2016/7/11/Kurtimah_to_Represent_Canada_in_Summer_Olympic_Games][https://www.news-leader.com/story/sports/college/msu/2016/07/11/missouri-state-track-star-run-canada-rio-olympics/86954318/] so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Had no career on the international level, therefore only local coverage. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Per [https://www.tilastopaja.info/beta/athletes/women/128382 Tilastopaja] the subject was nominated for the Canadian 2016 Olympic team and competed at the 2015 World University Games advancing to the semi-finals and finals, so the statement that she "had no career on the international level" simply isn't correct. Subject was also the 2016 Bajan national champion over 100m so she fulfills WP:TRACK prong 1 and prong 4, it's incorrect to say that she doesn't satisfy NTRACK.

: Now getting to the actual coverage, above article from the Springfield News-Leader can't be dismissed outright because it's a "local paper" -- that still qualifies as "independent" per the WP:GNG definition, {{tq|"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent}}.

: I've found several other high quality GNG-contributing sources, for example:

:*{{cite web |title=Guleph sprinter proves she belongs with Canada's best |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/waterloo-region-record-guleph-sprinter-p/165732421/ |publisher=Waterloo Region Record |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=1 |date=16 Jul 2016}}

:*{{cite web |title=Olympic potential seen by teacher |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/waterloo-region-record-olympic-potential/165732516/ |publisher=Waterloo Region Record |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=2 |date=16 Jul 2016}}

:*{{cite web |title=Missouri State track star will run for Canada |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-springfield-news-leader-missouri-sta/165732602/ |publisher=The Springfield News-Leader |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=D1 |date=12 Jul 2016}}

:*{{cite web |title=Kurtimah finishes 13th in 100-meter dash at World University Games |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-springfield-news-leader-kurtimah-fin/165732683/ |publisher=The Springfield News-Leader |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=D4 |date=10 Jul 2015}}

:*{{cite web |title=Royal City showdown fizzles |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/guelph-mercury-royal-city-showdown-fizzl/165732084/ |publisher=Guelph Mercury |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=B1 |date=11 Jun 2012}}

:*{{cite web |title=Triple threat off to blistering start |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/guelph-mercury-triple-threat-off-to-blis/165732214/ |publisher=Guelph Mercury |access-date=16 February 2025 |page=13 |date=1 Jun 2013}}

: The next step is to improve the article using these sources, which I think I can take on in the coming days. But the case for deletion isn't backed up by P&G with the newly found sources. --Habst (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::"Being nominated" counts for nothing in a career, and the World University Games is not an international meet - it's an international age-specific (and profession-specific, really) meet. "Strong keep" is ridiculous and you still mix in routine coverage with other coverage. Geschichte (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Geschichte, greatly respect your contributions but I disagree with both points. Being nominated can count for something in a career, just like being nominated for an award but not winning it can still be career-defining. And of course the World University Games is an international meet in the same way that the World Athletics U20 Championships is; athletes compete representing their country. I think based on the sources a strong keep view is justified. --Habst (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The coverage uncovered by Habst isn't the most impressive, but it appears to have enough combined independent coverage about the subject to meet WP:NBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep There is enough here for the article to be kept. The article isn’t brilliant but there is enough coverage. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep, per coverage presented by Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.