Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Boyce (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. TigerShark (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Boyce[edit]

[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)

Was deleted in 2018 due to a WP:GNG/N:FOOTBALL failure. She still fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Daily Record and Edinburgh Evening News articles appear to satisfy GNG. Crowsus (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transfer news is routine coverage. This article has 4 lines on her before quoting her and moving on to Hibs Ladies upcoming fixtures. This has one and a half sentences on her. Dougal18 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep Article looks fine, the sources don't appear to be that strong, but look good enough and a few other online hits. Govvy (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Daily Record source is sigcov but not sufficient on its own. Giant Snowman 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also found sources about her online. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share those sources with us? JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source containing anything that could even contribute to BASIC is a mere 4 sentences and some quotes. Not SIGCOV. The rest of the coverage is routine mentions in transactional news and profiles in non-independent/RS media. Not remotely passing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments more detailed than "Passes WP:GNG" or "Fails WP:GNG" would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, comments like that don't really help the discussion closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely should. Perfectly normal opinion expressed at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, one editor says, "Passes GNG" and the next one says, "Fails GNG". How much weight to give either comment, comments that took about 10 seconds to add to the AFD discussion and show no evidence that either editor has examined the article? An AFD I closed was brought to Deletion review simply because I gave statements like those any weight at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. If an editor wants to weigh in, they need to give more than that. Simione001, Necrothesp, why does it pass GNG, Sportsfan 1234, what did you do to research this and find it lacking? Das osmnezz, tell us what sources you found? Give the closers something to weigh! Jacona (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is all about opinion. In my opinion the sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG. What, do you think every source needs to be analysed? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What, do you think every source needs to be analysed? as a closer, it would be infinitely helpful as @Liz also pointed out. The volume of sports debates is exhausting, poor quality votes help no one even if one of you is by default "right" Star Mississippi 02:04, 15 July 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.