Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Johansen

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 redirect to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Johansen

[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)

I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles.

I boldly redirected myself but BeanieFan11 (correctly) reverted it after finding some coverage.

I have added both pieces of coverage I can find into the article but I still don't think it's enough for a GNG pass. One is very local and the other appears to be based almost entirely on an interview. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, United States of America, and Montana. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above if all else fails - WP:ATD. Nom is probably correct that present sources are not quite enough. Ingratis (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect becuase readers might find knowing her luge stats useful. I disagree that the local part of the coverage should be a disqualifying factor for the billings paper, but, regardless, it's only one source and cannot meet the GNG. I thought that the other source was an unreliable blog. My search yielded nothing more. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:20, 15 September 2022 (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.