Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Hack (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Hack

AfDs for this article:

[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 a soft deletion but was recreated. Hack fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AFD and salt. Giant Snowman 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has only been soft-deleted once, salt seems very much like overkill to me. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep" There is one feature article in She Kicks magazine; all other sources of length are from the various teams so are not independent. She Kicks probably would not be enough for me except that I found many mentions where she made the only goal and/or the winning goal of the match. This coverage is from reliable independent sources. I realize these are mentions, not significant coverage (which is why I am not bothering to add to the article), but they demonstrate ongoing coverage of her career as well as the key role she has on these teams. If the decision is not to keep this article, may I suggest moving it to the draft space for more development? I suspect there are more sources, I just have not figured out what British newspapers or magazines cover women's football. Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb, the She Kicks page is a routine transactional announcement and does not contribute to notability (all signings/departures are reported, and these are derived from press releases from the football clubs so are not independent anyway). Match reports are also considered routine game coverage and discounted by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient third person sources to justify that this article has notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are brief mentions in match reports which you know isn't significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "feature article" in She Kicks is a 4-sentence (including quote) routine transactional release and does not contribute to notability at all. Routine match reports also do not contribute. No evidence of actual SIGCOV.JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Debate is leaning delete but relisting for another 7 days in case additional sources appear and to see if further contributors assist with forming a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There are sources, but I think I'm still missing why she's notable. I think the article has potential, but I'd like to see more SIGCOV before I would change my vote to Keep. I think salting is too extreme of a step. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I wrote above, draftify is a fine option by me. Rublamb (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InvadingInvader, do you still think this stub is worth draftifying? Is there any indication additional coverage is expected? JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ seems fair per InvadingInvader. If there is no additional coverage and/or the creator loses interest, it automatically gets deleted in 6 months. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Rublamb and Dwanyewest. Young player with sources andoingoing career with fully pro experience in England WSL. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pro player. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject currently lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to have a mainspace article now. We keep articles because they pass the WP:GNG, not because they have a pro career or because they are a young player. It is reasonable to believe that this subject may receive additional coverage in the near future though, so putting this in draft space to allow interested editors to work on it seems like a fair solution. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any point in draftifying a one-sentence-plus-infobox stub article just in case more sources might appear soon. It's easy to recreate if they do. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still playing for the Lewes football club per recent websites, but simply confirming she exists isn't enough. These are simply match reports on the team's website. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's (at least) two half-decent references in the article. She get's other coverage for matches, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a one-sentence mention in a match play-by-play. It does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it counted towards GNG, at least by itself. I did say there's two others. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify (if that's what you want to do). The best source has three non-quote sentences and the rest of the sources are one sentence passing mentions in game recaps. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a WP:Biography of a living person and I hope everyone realises that while articles from mainspace often get deleted, these WP:Articles for deletion discussions remain accessible on the Internet forever, permanently linked to their name. To the article creator and re-creator @Dwanyewest: Although you are probably have the best intentions in your advocacy of this player on Wikipedia, you also have to consider that an underdeveloped stub about a football player is sure to be a lightning rod for controversy, and triggering this type of extended discussion where various editors debate and dissect their existing media coverage simply fuels more chatter on the Internet that isn't all that positive. The fact that one of the most active Wikipedia editors from WP:WikiProject Football and associated task forces is recommending that this article is not only deleted but also "salted" underscores that another possible consequence is that the player would essentially not be eligible for their own Wikipedia article in the future. I'm not sure what the right solution is here – I initially recommended draftification to allow the article creator and other editors to further develop the article and publish it in the future when more meaningful coverage about the player is found – but if there aren't enough editors to get behind that, then maybe the solution is to simply delete it, just so we can put this protracted discussion to rest and try to minimise any further embarrassment and annoyance to the living person(s) to whom this name belongs. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first reference contains the only secondary source comment that her training is “regular”.
#2, an interview, is entirely non-independent, #3 is very brief and non-independent, #4 brief routine mention of facts, #5 first three paragraphs are facts, not secondary source content, until paragraphs 4-5 that are direct quotes from her coach, not independent, and too close, #6 is sideline routine coverage of the game.
#7&8 are just data, primary source material.
everything reported could be summarises as facts in a table, there is no in depth independent secondary source coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with SmokeyJoe's source eval above. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill sports news, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the source analyses above by SmokeyJoe and JoelleJay. I don't think that SALT is needed at this stage, though. That said, Hack is clearly not in the public eye given that she has only played 2 games this season and 8 the season before in a second tier semi-pro league. She is still young so if she does work here way up to WSL and put herself in the public eye (and gain the WP:SIGCOV that would usually come with) then maybe we can look at restoring this in future, although I would prefer Draft and AfC at that stage, personally. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 14 January 2024 (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.