Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Appelqvist

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. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Appelqvist[edit]

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

The article is about a footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY, as she hasn't represented her country at senior level, and representing her country at youth level confers no notability. The PROD was removed by the article-creator with the rationale that "Appelqvist is an important player in a contender for the next UEFA Women's Champions League title". I thought that was a good claim for notability if backed up by reliable sources, but I can't find anything that backs up that claim, and I haven't gotten any reply from the article creator whether s/he had any sources that would back up that claim when I asked two months ago. I can't find any in-depth coverage about the player in question, the only sources I find are transfer news like this, so the subject also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level). Giant Snowman 12:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion. Here's a few more citations to add to the existing five already establishing notability: 1, 2, 3 Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)@[reply]
- The first source is more or less the same as the one I found, a routine transport report: It states that Appelqvist moves from the Swedish champions to join another club, and that Piteå IF are very happy about their new signing. It also states that she is a regular at the Swedish under-23, that she was captain of the under-20 team in the 2010 World Cup, how many many matches she has played at youth international level, and her former clubs.
  The second one is a good source, if you find more like that I might change my vote. The third one only mentions her name, and doesn't really count for notability. As for the "five existing citations establishing notability", we have A) one citation to a stats-profile from Soccerway, B) another transfer-report similar to the other ones, C) a match-report which doesn't mention her name, D) a stats-profile from FIFA, and E) a dead link, which I believe is a match-report similar to C. Neither of this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are five more for your reading pleasure: 4, 5 (from radio program), 6, 7, 8. Hmlarson (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually thought you were Swedish, since your username contains a Swedish surname, but after reading through this I believe you are not understanding any of it just googling her name and pasting everything you find. #4 is about the under-20 team and not Appelqvist, #6 is a blog while #7 and 8 are routine transfer-news, nothing that is useful to meet WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL, I guess we'll let the rest of the editors and closing admin decide on that. Hmlarson (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        For clarity: #6 Damfotboll.com is not a blog; it's a sort of Swedish She Kicks, run and edited by Anette Börjesson and Thorsten Frennstedt. These are professional women's football journalists of many year's standing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played for the Swedish league champions, and that's pretty high up in the mostly amateur women's football. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe she squeezes by on GNG. Lots of mentions, and not just as one in a list of names - she keeps being called "one of the two best", she was one of two Swedish players chosen for the Top 10 in 2009, and those are lengthy transfer reports for a female player. Plus the one profile article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GNG: this coverage is beyond WP:ROUTINE. I think it's about time women's football articles got their own, more appropriate, notability criteria on here to prevent these types of nominations in future. I know the WP:FOOTY lads generally mean well, but in most cases what they know about women's football would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with your suggestion. Given the context of this widely known circumstance: 1, [2], [3], clearly the notability criteria needs to be updated relevant to gender as well as countries that don't have 100+ years of established football history and widespread "fully professional teams". The fact that there is currently only ONE women's football/soccer league that meets the "fully professional" notability criteria put forth by WP:FOOTY (not mentioning what it took to get it listed there), and at least EIGHT women's leagues listed as "top-level leagues which are not fully professional" only serves to EXCLUDE the majority of professional female football/soccer players and teams. Hmlarson (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong feeling that you knew you would agree Clavdia before you invited her to join the discussion, and that might be the reason why you did not invite any of the three other editors with only minor edits to this article. (Yes you sent a message to Yngvadottir aswell, but she did make substantial edits to the article, unlike Clavdia). Mentoz86 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are four different projects associated with this article - not just WP:FOOTY. Perhaps, I will make them aware also to encourage a more thorough consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this edit made sure that all projects got the article arlets, but inviting certain users to this discussion which you know are likely to keep articles about women footballers is called WP:VOTESTACKING. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you're fishing in the wrong pond. Hmlarson (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just "go over their heads" and fix up our own notability criteria? Start with the leagues we like, then, working backwards from that, come up with some lame justification for drawing a red line around them. After all that's what they did with WP:FPL, and we would struggle to come up with anything as ridiculous! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to say 'Keep' but cannot simply as I don't see enough that passes WP:GNG. Have to agree though that women's football is let down by WP:NFOOTBALL and agree more appropriate wording is needed.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet the minimum standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron32 17:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (on the balance) - the womens' lists are incomplete on the WP:NFOOTBALL - so top level league and hovering around national selection to national team is enough for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to creep over the GNG line for me, which trumps a project guideline (i.e. NFOOTBALL). NFOOTBALL does need to be revisited, particularly in regard to female footballers (seems nonsensical that this lady has reasonably wide coverage, including at FIFA.com, while someone like Jack Marriott (footballer) say, is auto-notable in the eyes of NFOOTBALL for having made a single substitute appearance of 29 minutes in the Championship). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about satisfies GNG: NFOOTBALL is hopeless for women's football, as it is with other things. She's played in 70 games for two top-tier sides; that on its own should be enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequately satisfies GNG, which for me is more important than specific criteria as in NFOOTBALL which discussion above shows not satisfactory anyway. Re BLP: nothing contentious, adequately sourced. While the article occasionally lapses in NPOV (tone), this is not grounds for deletion, just article improvement. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:25, 2 July 2013 (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.