Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellaisa Marquis

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. Consensus is the arguments for WP:GNG trump other guidelines, and that the sources presented and improvements to the article are sufficient to show this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaisa Marquis[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)

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. WP:SIGCOV is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability criteria has not been met. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unprodder. We have nontrivial coverage in two national-level newspaper articles, and significant coverage with less depth in a third: One giving a paragraph-length bio of her as shortlisted for her country's "sportswoman of the year award", one leading with a photo of her and calling her a key player for the national team, and the third listing her as team captain for an Olympic qualification tournament. There is plenty of additional newspaper coverage giving individual mention of her as having scored goals (or in one case an unfortunate own-goal) in significant national-level events (and also some coverage of her in US collegiate events, where she made the all-conference first team [1]). This is GNG-level coverage, far beyond the usual footballer with only a line in a database to document their inclusion on the roster of a dubiously-significant league-level game. PS @Sportsfan 1234: the Oceania deletion sorting list? Really?? Since when is the Caribbean part of Oceania? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, which multiple independent secondary RS go into any depth beyond the routine match coverage explicitly rejected in NSPORT? I looked at the sources in the article and all of them are exactly the kind of coverage we regularly discount in athlete AfDs per WP:NSPORT. If you think SNGs or the GNG hold any value at all in assessing what is notability-defining coverage of their subjects, you should read the relevant updated guidelines as well as prior AfDs on sportspeople to see why this coverage fails. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable the coverage goes beyond the usual stats and rosters: "A very unique and special athlete", from the award nomination. PamD 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, Saint Lucia Star described her as "over many years Saint Lucia's marquis player when it comes to women's football". Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those assessments are by the same person, and neither of them is SIGCOV... We don't write articles based on one reporter's brief opinion on the subject no matter how complimentary they are or how esteemed they imply the subject to be, otherwise we would have an article on every single junior college athlete in America. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded article further in light of comments above. There is room for even more expansion given the volume of coverage about Marquis and her achievements. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A photograph, paragraph and a "she's captain of the national team mention" is not significant coverage. Scoring goals falls under routine coverage regardless of whether it's a World Cup Final or a Under-7s game. Dougal18 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have coverage at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A huge flag is that there are multiple spellings of her first name – specifically, "Elissa Marquis" seems very prominent. Rechecking for additional coverage and will add accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Giant Snowman 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear and significant coverage, a lot more than probably 90 per cent of the Wikipedia pages out there. If this doesn't count, let's just wipe the website and start over.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not agree that all sources are trivial. For example these two give SIGCOV 1, 2 Mujinga (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is now in much better shape thanks to excellent work by David Eppstein and Cielquiparle. Coverage is beyond trivial/routine stats listings, mentions etc. meaning that WP:SPORTBASIC is met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David above, looks like more than enough sources in the article, it all adds up. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has undergone a remarkable amount of refbombing, including with unusable-for-GNG and BLP-violating sources, apparently arising after a ~~WP:POINTY~~ DYK nomination. The subject does not meet GNG SIGCOV or ANYBIO requirements unless we decide to ignore the hundreds of articles deleted on other footballers with the same or more coverage and relative achievement, and the thousands of deleted subjects who are not athletes. Currently the article consists of way too much unencyclopedic and UNDUE material on minor athletic events, and the only independent commentary on her is the opinion of ONE reporter, which fails NPOV.

The first St Lucia Star article has a couple brief mentions of Marquis with no actual coverage of her in any detail ✘
The second SLS article (articles by the same paper are not counted as independent, especially when they're by the same author) lists her on a roster ✘
The first The Voice St Lucia source is also just her name in a roster list ✘
The MNU Accent source is discounted out-of-hand as it's non-independent, but also only includes a half-sentence on Marquis ✘
The third SLS ref (still by the same author) is a routine match report with two partial-sentence mentions ✘
The second TVSLU ref is not independent (and is also by the same author as the first) and is just a routine match report with 1.5 sentences mentioning her ✘
The third TVSLU ref (also by the same person, who can't seem to spell her name correctly) mentions her in a list and then again at the end of one sentence (emphasis mine: "Levern Spencer who did not make the list last year is back and is more than likely to win her 15th Sportswoman of the year title ahead of Qiana Joseph and Elisia Marquis" -- how selective is this honor if someone can win it 15 times.....) ✘
The fourth SLS article, also covering the Sports Awards and predictably by the same reporter, has the only non-trivial coverage out of all the sources but still comprises just 5 very short basic sentences on her: this would not be enough for any other modern athlete at AfD, why would we overturn our guidelines for this case? ✘
Carib Direct, by an anonymous contributor, has just a trivial mention of her ✘
Terry Finisterre blog is a blog and should be removed per BLP ✘
Fort McMurray Today article mentions her joining a college team along with another St Lucian player ✘
SXU Cougars is non-independent routine match coverage ✘
SXU Student Media is another non-independent routine match report ✘
GU Jackets is a non-independent info table listing Marquis as a member of the 1st Team of a minor NAIA conference ✘
The Vincentian doesn't mention her at all ✘
The fourth TVSLU article is exclusively a Q&A interview with virtually zero independent info on her; such interviews are explicitly excluded by both WP:OR and WP:NSPORT ✘
St Lucia News Online gives her a one-sentence mention (and is by the same blog author, so not independent) ✘

<15 words of opinion on her from David Pascal of the St Lucia Star is not enough for a neutral biography. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the two sources people are claiming "provide SIGCOV" are just the two reports of her nomination for Sportswoman of the Year, then BLP1E is also failed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on "ref-bombing" – intention was not to ref-bomb, but to confirm facts using multiple sources. Obviously not all of the sources can be used to establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the DYK nomination occurred after the expansion; you only have 7 days to submit, which is why I submitted it when I did. I don't submit every single article I expand or create to DYK, just the genuinely interesting ones, which also help to provide variety to the usual topics covered in DYK. I understand that if this article gets deleted, the DYK will not stand. I also think it's important to have empathy and respect for the AfD nominator, who has undertaken a very difficult and underappreciated job which is very important, as well as all the creators who have meticulously compiled a large number of article stubs under a somewhat different set of rules. We are all part of the same process, which is to ensure that Wikipedia has good, accurate, reliable content. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see the DYK being in good faith, I've struck that part. (The rest of this isn't necessarily a response to you, but a general comment). I really do appreciate efforts to increase representation of groups that have been historically undervalued (see my user page), but as someone highly active in athlete AfDs and notability discussions, keeping an article with this level of coverage only serves to muddy the waters when the next USL recruit with a mildly successful college career comes up at AfD. Because if being named to the 1st team in your conference, or being nominated for the equivalent of Tempe, Arizona Sportsperson of the Year (based on population), or being mentioned in a positive light by one reporter a couple times is enough for a standalone article, we're going to get tens of thousands more stubs on white male athletes for every one on an intersectional identity, which means tens of thousands more BLPs on largely private people to monitor. I'm also strongly opposed to assuming a country "needs help" getting WP coverage based only on its being obscure-to-Americans and non-majority-white. WP:BIAS is supposed to encourage editors to find notable topics from underrepresented regions -- which they normally wouldn't come across due to geography/interests -- and to recognize the potential for offline sources in places with little online presence. It's not a license to lower our standards just to get more articles on subjects from places we consider "developing world" -- that just smacks of paternalism and double standards. An island of ~180,000 people with clearly strong online journalism and two Nobel prize laureates -- the highest per capita in the world -- is hardly in need of an artificial boost, especially when a St. Lucian is already 3.5x more likely to have an article on WP than an American is. They are doing just fine producing notable people and topics relative to their population without needing to redefine GNG so one athlete can have an article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one making arguments that this article exists for the purpose of artificially boosting underrepresented people. In fact, your argument amounts to: we should impose artificial barriers on people from regions we think are adequately represented, even people who are documented as being the best from those regions, and only provide coverage on global stars and people from the really backwards regions. It's the same all-or-nothing reasoning that blocks poor people from having any savings at all, forcing them to remain poor, because as soon as they do they stop being poor and we must take away every little bit of assistance they've been given. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I am advocating is using a consistent standard for what constitutes SIGCOV regardless of the subject's background. It should not make a difference whether someone is the best athlete from a city of 200k people or a country of 200k people if the depth and amount of coverage is the same -- otherwise we are introducing some kind of subjective pseudo-ANYBIO "achievement" aspect to the GNG when there specifically is none, as well as overriding explicit consensus on NSPORT subjects. Athletes with this level of sourcing are straightforward deletions, and even ones with 5x the coverage are regularly deleted -- for example, look at the sources for Danish Manzoor, Genny Rondinella, Treyten Lapcevich, Alex Cox-Ashwood (who even had the prestigious distinction of "Jimmy John's Male Athlete of the Week"), and Indrit Cullhaj. The one source on Marquis that provides anything beyond routine match details or brief mentions is the award nomination announcement -- 5 short sentences, the majority just listing where/when she played rather than actually discussing her, is not considered SIGCOV for athletes -- and therefore also fails BLP1E.

And applying consistent standards for notability is not "removing assistance", it's ensuring we have adequate encyclopedic material for all standalone subjects. That means we don't have articles sourced to run-of-the-mill match reports, coverage of minor achievements from clubs or orgs the subject belongs to, or a single reporter's opinion on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in just the St Lucia Star & the Voice alone is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Also, the quality of the recent improvements make this an exemplary WP:Hey. FeydHuxtable (talk)
Keep she has significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple national newspapers. This is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and I don't agree with the source evaluation above (from a couple of days ago) claiming that none of the sources are significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the source evaluation above is farcical. I could go through the sources at David Beckham or Cristiano Ronaldo and pretend they're all "refbombing" or try to disparage them on some other tenuous basis. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay. None of the sources seem to be more than routine sport coverage or trivial mentions. None of the RSes go beyond a few disconnected sentences, and none that I see go into significant biographical details. We'd need to see some sort of dedicated profile for this to pass WP:GNG. And I can't find more sources that go in depth. Many of the keep votes are saying there is significant coverage, but I can't figure out which sources they're referring to. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a dedicated profile. WP:GNG specifically says the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 14 June 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.