Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Riordan

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hannah Riordan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hannah Riordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject doesn't meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BIO as the only news articles about the subject mention her in passing. The subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSPORTS. She did not compete at the Olympic level, only at the junior level, which does not confer notability. Subject was a college athlete but does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. In summary, this person is an accomplished athlete but these accomplishments don't rise to the very high bar required for inclusion. The only coverage of this person seems to be WP:ROUTINE SwimproUSA (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete there is a lack of the significant coverage needed to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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.