Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodie Bain

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. Fenix down (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Bain[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)

PROD correctly removed because it had already had a PROD before. My concern still remains. Fails WP:NFOOTY as footballer hasn't appeared in a fully pro league or had a full international cap. The complete lack of significant coverage indicates that this fails WP:GNG also. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. the external link says almost nothing. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice (See following Comment) - No one has been able to show me where Wikipedia ever said "fully" professional anything. I am still waiting and I think I will be waiting forever because it isn't there. The use of the word "fully" professional is used by deletionist to advocate the removal of hundreds of articles based on their personal opinion, and op-ed style written essays, not wikipedia policy. I have no issue and never will have issue with debating and discussing policy. This player plays/played in the top professional women's league in Australia. That is supported by wikipedia policy as the exact wording of the policy says "top professional". A written essay can not supercede the primary or secondary wikipedia guidelines. She meets WP:NFOOTY, as a professional player semi or otherwise, but does not meet WP:GNG as no reliable sources were given. For that I say delete until reliable sources are brought forward.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is an essay to be used as a guide only. I'm perfectly happy with most of the articles on Australian female footballers, even though a lot of them technically fail NFOOTY. There are, however, a handful that are completely unsourced and a BEFORE search has turned up next to nothing on those occasions. Those have been given a PROD in the same way that we often propose to delete articles on many male footballers that may scrape through the NFOOTY criteria by the skin of their teeth but comprehensively fail GNG. The idea of NFOOTY is, I think, fully professional leagues tend to get more coverage than semi-pro ones so there is a presumption that players that have played in them should have GNG coverage but, of course, this is often not the case and there are many players that fail NFOOTY that meet GNG. Spiderone 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of this particular case and recant my statement that she passes NFOOTY. She does not. I also agree that NFOOTY can be used as reference but I find it is used in these AfD's almost as policy to initiate deletions and complete decisions are made on the basis of that claim alone. I have seen it. To me this is fallacy to take an essay and present it as a definitive arguing point rather than a point of reference. The fact it fails WP:NFOOTY is of no relevance to policy than any other opinion or essay out there on Wikipedia. The fact it fails WP:GNG is the determining factor in this case and all others.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Point 2 of the notability criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association_football (usually linked at WP:NFOOTY) states "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". Contrary to what Spiderone says, this is not an essay, it is a formal notability guideline (I think they might be referring to WP:FPL, which is a referenced list of what leagues are fully professional). Number 5 7 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: NFOOTY is an essay, not wikipedia policy. It carries no more weight than an OP-ED in a newspaper, tbh. It can be used as a reference which means it also can be ignored entirely when making a decision. Come with something better or your attempts to delete this article are not based on policy but opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clearly demonstrated in my links above, it is not an essay, it is a notability guideline. If you cannot understand this basic concept, you should not be participating in AfDs. Number 5 7 12:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going to do a WP:BEFORE. If they are relying on nfooty to make the grade, then i'm not wasting my time. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Had a look at the Age/Sydney Morning Herald archvie, NewsBank, ProQuest and EBSCOhost and there's nothing meaningful beyond a couple of name-checks in match reports. Hack (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and has not played in professional matches. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:17, 12 October 2020 (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.