Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue

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 the whole shebang with leave to speedy renominate any of these articles individually. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Logue

Since there are some good faith edits being made to progressively improve these articles I've decided to withdraw all nominated articles at this time. They can always be revisited later if nobody makes a serious attempt to assert notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is a female player in a local soccer team. While the team may be notable, the subject fails WP:GNG. She may have represented the team overseas once, six years ago, but this seems to be her only claim to fame. AussieLegend (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. All of these players play for the same club. Some have played for only a single season and most have not played overseas. None have received significant coverage anywhere:[reply]

--AussieLegend (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to withdraw the nominations for Kate Gill and Joanne Peters as citations have been addded to the articles and they now meet WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Neilson has now been withdrawn. I'm satisfied that she now meets GNG after constructive edits to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These players should meet WP:ATHLETE through appearances in a national professional league. A quick search for references that this is a professional league - "Australian professional women's soccer league", "continue to develop at a professional level", "professionally administered and professionally run competition". Nominating players like Kate Gill and Joanne Peters who have played 50+ and 100+ games at a senior international level respectively shows a lack of checking the articles closely. Camw (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE actually says "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Are all of these players fully professional, or do they have day jobs? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, do you have a reliable source that contradicts these players being professional? Camw (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to prove that. Notability requires verifiable evidence and there is no evidence that they are fully professional. Therefore, there is no evidence that they meet WP:ATHLETE. In fact, there's little in the articles of anything. There's certainly no significant coverage as required by GNG. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a number of links above that state the league is professional and plenty of the players have significant coverage Emily Van Egmond as one example. Camw (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in a professional league is not evidence of being fully professional as is required by WP:ATHLETE. You can play football one day a week and get paid but that doesn't make you fully professional. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Athlete says that the level of competition needs to be fully professional, if the sources say the competition is professional, the people competing in it meet the criteria. You'll find players in the majority of professional sporting competitions in the world that will have jobs other than playing sport but that doesn't make everyone in the competition suddenly fail WP:Athlete. The W-League is listed as a fully professional league by the WP:WikiProject Football so it meets the criteria of the community that actually works on these kind of articles. Plenty of these players have news articles with some level of coverage based on doing a simple Google search, it's unreasonable to expect people to do this for 17 people for this discussion when you obviously didn't do it before nominating the articles without even checking if they had made a full international appearance which would have them easily meet WP:Athlete. Camw (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, which is that I don't believe that these players have competed at a fully professional level. This means that they fail WP:ATHLETE as well as WP:GNG. I dd in fact do some searching before nominating and saw results such as Stacy Day. Of those that do have some coverage, it's not significant enough to confirm that they're competing at a fully professional level. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you believe that even the players that have played in senior international games are not notable? Camw (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kate Gill, Amber Neilson and Joanne Peters unambiguously meet WP:ATHLETE by virtue of playing international football. Hack (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Van Egmond has made an international appearance as well - there may be others in the list also. WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed on these nominations. Camw (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: (Comment: If the team "might be notable", why not recommend a merge with redirects instead of mass deletion? This could have been handled differently, without alienating the editor(s).) Keep or merge based on Camw's assertion that the league is fully professional as per WikiProject Football. - BalthCat (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I didn't think a merge would be supported. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no value in deleting all those articles outright, when merging current members - including some expanded details and photography - into the team article is viable. BalthCat (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The practice at the Football Wikiproject has been that players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional.

Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.

Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).

Hack (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going with the stance that just because these are women does not make their professionalism any less notable than if men were playing. I say let collaboration roll and build the articles up!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Camw has demonstrated, these players have all played in a fully-pro league, therefore meeting WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per the links posted by Camw. These players all meet WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all who have not played for Australia. AussieLegend has this spot on. Just because a league is "professionally run" does not mean it is fully professional. Do W-League players earn a living from the W-League? No. So it is not fully professional. - Mkativerata Procedural withdraw to allow this to be speedily closed. I remain of the view that an athlete who merely plays in the W-League does not meet WP:ATH. The discussion here and at Wikiproject Footbal has merely reinforced my view that it is not a fully professional league. This nomination was hurt by being a batch job that included some genuinely notable players. I hope that some of the genuinely non-notable players come back here on an individual basis in the not too distant future. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe that "rate of pay" should be an indicator. For example, from about 1920 through 1950, most players in the National Football League had second jobs, as did a lot of professional baseball players. Further, the financial success or failure of the league does not necessarily have impact on its notability--such as the United States Football League from the 1980s.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rate of pay is one of the most determinative factors that distinguishes semi-professional from fully professional. Especially for leagues that exist now, as opposed to 70 years ago. Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's true, then 1) The NFL was a "semi-pro" league until about 1972, and 2) What exactly would be the "threshhold" of pay that would qualify for "fully-professional" ? WP:BIG covers this as an "arbitrary quantity" in the essay "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions"--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, there is a big difference between sport decades ago and sport now. If you can't earn a living out of a sport in the western world in the 21st century it ain't fully professional. That's what fully professional means, it's no arbitrary standard. Anything else is semi-professional. God help us if WP:ATH extends to semi-professionalism: the community is trying to tighten WP:ATH not broaden it. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "A living" is an arbitrary standard. Plenty of sports leagues have players that have/need second jobs (Major League Soccer - [1], National Rugby League - [2] for a start) but you'd be laughed out of the AfD if you tried to nominate players in those leagues. I don't see what is so terrible about having verifiable and referenced articles about people playing in a televised (drawing 100,000+ viewers for some matches according to ratings), national top level competition. Camw (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is it a problem? In my view, because the benefit of having very brief and uninformative stubs about marginally notable people is outweighed by the problems caused when there's no-one to update them and upholding the community's views on athletes. But I'm certainly not pretending that you're not entitled to disagree with that. By the way, on what basis is this a reliable source? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Understood. Ideally articles wouldn't be stubs indefinitely, but I know that some will be unlikely to go any further. I don't think that means they should all be deleted as I believe the positives outweigh the negatives, but I accept that it's an issue that is going to have people on both sides. I still don't think that this mass nomination by AL was the best way to go about it, but what is done is done. Edit: The site has a track record over a number of years of keeping accurate statistics based on official match reports, if it isn't considered reliable enough then it can easily be replaced with the official club site profiles usually linked in the external link section (though these can be problematic when players move between clubs). Camw (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as they all appear to meet WP:ATHLETE, at least according to Camw's source. This could of course change if said guideline is tightened at some point in the future. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most as not meeting WP:GNG guidelines. I don't believe the W-League (Australia) is fully professional per ongoing discussion here.Keep Kate Gill, Amber Neilson, Joanne Peters, as passing WP:ATHLETE having represented Australia internationally on multiple occasions, ~~Week~~ Keep Emily van Egmond under ATHLETE as having apparently made a 90th minute appearance in a senior international, ~~subject to demonstration of GNG (like follow-through and reference appearance in article at the very least)~~ (now demonstrated in article). Note to nominator,: Please ensure all nominated under a group nomination fit into the same envelope. As noted above, WP:BEFORE would have saved a certain amount of leg-work for reviewing contributors. Live and learn though, eh?--ClubOranje^T 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) -- (updated --ClubOranje^T 02:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've withdrawn the nominations for Kate Gill and Joanne Peters but Amber Neilson and Emily van Egmond still fail GNG. A single 90th minute appearance doesn't make Emily van Egmond fully professional. As for Amber Neilson, her player profile, which is used as a citation in the article, doesn't help her.[3] It doesn't even support the claim that she plays for the Newcastle Jets. As biographical articles go, these articles are of exceptionally poor quality. Much of the information appears to be original research. I really can't believe that people would want to keep them this way. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being of "exceptionally poor quality" is not a reason to delete. The player profile page has obviously changed, as pages on the internet do from time to time, there are plenty of sources that show she has played in full international games and would meet WP:Athlete. Here are three sources that constitute significant coverage for Emily van Egmond - [4] [5] and a broken link, but shows a story was published, stories not being accessible online isn't relevant. Camw (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was a reason for deletion. It was just an observation but, if we follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and remove the uncited information and information that appears to be OR, there would be little content in most of these articles. Regarding the broken link you've provided, without content to verify, it's useless. Biographical articles require high quality sources. That doesn't qualify. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other two articles and the international appearance are fine for notability regardless of any other source qualifying. Camw (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't they in the article? Over 10,000 bytes have been added to this page by those supporting retention of these poorly sourced articles and yet, there has been absolutely no attempt to improve 16 of the 18 articles nominated. If these individuals really were notable then the articles should be brimming with citations demonstrating that by now. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You drag people here without checking for sources on players with 100+ international appearances and wonder why they aren't off doing more productive things that would actually improve the encyclopedia? You are the one that is so concerned about the poor quality, add them yourself. Camw (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles hadn't been created there would have been no need to raise this nomination. The fault lies squarely with the people who have created or added to these articles and haven't followed policy. Biographical articles require high quality sources and notability needs to be demonstrated. That hasn't been done here. I have no desire to add citations because I don't think the subjects are notable. They don't meet GNG (2 citations is not "significant" coverage), they aren't fully professional as required by WP:ATHLETE and while they might be professionally managed, the clubs aren't fully professional as required by WP:FOOTBALL. I have checked several of the sources used and they really don't support the notability requirements. Mere mention as a member of a team is not "significant". Nor is a couple of articles in the same newspaper. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT and WP:WABBITSEASON are coming to mind...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, nominating non-qualifying articles for deletion is fixing it.--ClubOranje^T 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden also lies on those who feel the need to whip out the scalpel every time something looks like it might only be marginally notable. Read WP:ATD for some suggestions on what to do next time instead. - BalthCat (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "having reviewed the sources I don't consider them notable" is so hard to understand.[6][7][8][9] WP:ATD is only useful when the subjects are notable. I don't believe they are, which is why I nominated them, after checking sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe a call to merge would have been more appropriate, and better received. (Then there's your snarky edit summaries that I just noticed...) - BalthCat (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done. Try to concentrate on what is here now. As for the edit summary, given that I had said it several times in clear English I find it incredibly amazing that comments are still being made. If I wasn't asssuming good faith I might think it's being done to push the discussion off track because people can';t demonstrate the notability of the nominated articles with citations from high quality reliable sources. The edit summary was entirely valid and I would direct you to WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2010 (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.