Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Ovalle

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Ovalle

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
es.fifa.com - a lengthy interview with the player providing a reasonable level of coverage. Not sure whether an article on a player appearing on the FIFA website essentially to promote the FIFA U-17 world cup should be considered a primary source. Either way it seems to be insufficient on its own to satisfy GNG.
economiahoy.mx - a very brief interview with the player containing little in the way of content specifically about the player as her comments are concerned with her team rather than herself. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY having not played pro football. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing sources + a basic Google News search indicate WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY doesn't apply to the vast majority of top-division women's leagues - only 1 league last I checked. We should look into why that is.Hmlarson (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Contrary to the above claim, WP:NFOOTY is applicable to women's football – please refrain from making misleading statements at AfDs. Number 5 7 23:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For any editors new (and old) wanting to assess "misleading comments":

Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has no relevance to your claim that NFOOTY "doesn't apply" — it does apply. What you are unhappy about is the fact that only players from one league meet the 'played in a fully-professional league' criterion. You could have just said that rather than make a misleading claim about the guideline's applicability. Number 5 7 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While some interesting points about no (or limited) relevance for WP:FOOTY with regard to women's footballers have been raised, I disagree with your assessment + instructions on how to communicate. Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice, but if you continue to make misleading statements, be aware that such behaviour may result in you being asked to stay away from these AfDs, as per this recent discussion at AN. Number 5 7 08:27, 31 January 2018 (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.