Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Pullar

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Pullar[edit]

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

Contest dePROD: Fail WP:NFOOTBALL because I do not see any proof that she play for national team or fully-pro league. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Oh yes! I forget to ping previous PROD nominator Ortizesp. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; several references, but they are routine coverage, passing mentions or statistical. Jellyman (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion, I assume the nominator meant to say he doesn't see any proof to pass N:Footy. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! And I don't see any source to prove these. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you very much! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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. Specific concerns with the references include:

glasgowcityfc.co.uk - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
soccerway.com - Stat site, no significant coverage
falkirkherald.co.uk - dead link by the look of things, although the headline would indicate and article more focused on a team she played for not the player herself
tartankicks.uk 1 - routine transfer talk, consensus is this should not be used to support GNG.
bbc.co.uk - routine match report. Very brief mention of the player, but nothing approaching significant coverage
tartankicks.uk 2 - routine transfer talk, consensus is this should not be used to support GNG.
facebook.com - primary source, not suitable for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: The page creator has just added [1] source, please also leave a comment on this source, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And [2] and [3], thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three sources mention the player in any significant detail. They are all articles about clubs and routine match reporting with trivial mentions of the player at best. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: In terms of the web there is not much coverage of women's soccer here in scotland. The player Nicole Pullar has alot of coverage for a female footballer so I believe she satisfies GNG. [[4]] is a major source of information on women's soccer here in scotland so I added that as a reference. The other references I have added (national newspapers and bbc) is to show the player is continuously a main player in matches. Being the top scorer for the last three years for a top level team in scotland (team finished in the top four for the last two seasons) should surely satisfy GNG. The player was the main forward signing for the league champions Glasgow City (they are a professional club) who play in the Champions League. The reference I added was through the Glasgow City website because the other places I initially read it (I believe daily record) could not be located. I am a woman who didn't play alot of soccer but always looked for information and found very little in newspapers etc. I added the facebook reference because I could not find the information through other media and felt it would be ultimately helpful in information terms. I created the article because I know there are alot of people like myself, especially girls who look for information. I'm just trying to help the encyclopedia and I believe this player satisfies GNG. Hope you and the other editors understand this. Thanks for contributing to the argument GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if there isn't significant independent coverage of the player in reliable sources then the player doesn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be really interesting to explore what qualifies as significant independent coverage. As far as I'm aware female profiles on the encyclopedia account for less than 25% of total articles. I would say professionalism in sport accounts greatly toward this stat. The fact women's football in scotland gets very little media coverage is telling. Do you think this should be taken into consideration as a defining factor in GNG? GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for exploration, WP:GNG is quite clear that whilst a given source does not have to be specifically about the subject it must contain more than a trivial mention. That is why none of the sources in the article support GNG. The fact that women's football in Scotland gets, as you say, very little media coverage is in direct correlation with its popularity and the less coverage a subject gets the less notable it is. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article and believe the player satisfies GNG. Top scorer for a top level team SPL1 for three consecutive seasons. The Team finished in the top 4 for the last two seasons. [[5]] is a major information outlet for women's soccer here in Scotland so it is a reliable source. I'm sure the player represented the country at u-19 level but I cannot find any current evidence to support this but am working on it. I've also added a link to the page that was broken. There is not alot of coverage of women's soccer in Scotland so the player has had significant coverage in that respect. Thanks to everyone for their input and taking the time to discuss and give their decision GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @GlasgowBraveheart: I have no comment on whether to pass WP:GNG, but this league is clearly not a fully professional league on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. You can invite some involving editor in this AfD to discuss whether to pass WP:GNG or not. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Thank you, I'm not really sure how to do that but I will look into it. I added the article as I felt the player warranted an article on the encyclopedia. Thank you so much for your input in this AfD and your suggestion. I've tried to add more links to the article also GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can also read other editors' opinion especially Fenix down's. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: ah I understand now. Thank you GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GlasgowBraveheart - You might consider posting your queries to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women for a more helpful, well-rounded response than what you'll typically find in a deletion discussion like this. See also Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Hmlarson (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
: Hmlarson - Thank you so much. I think the encyclopedia has a bright future if the contributors on this discussion is anything to go by. I am going to look into those pages. Thanks again GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Everipedia is slated to launch publicly near the end of the month. ref Might be worth checking out. Hmlarson (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 16 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.