Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Bailey (footballer)

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 redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay#End of relay. The consensus seems to be that an article at this point is premature. No prejudice towards recreation if her actions lead to a stronger case for notability in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Bailey (footballer)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable as a footballer and not notable for being one of thousands of people involved in the Olympic opening - she fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football discussion, WP:NFOOTBALL is a non-sequitur: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTBALL but we do not delete Tony Blair. Notability is conveyed by significant coverage in reliable sources. Is there significant coverage of her in reliable sources? There is certainly numerous coverage (see article) by RS's and sometimes surprising: as I pointed out, Sky News mentioned her and omitted Kenneth Branagh, which was a trifle harsh to Branagh. But is there in-depth coverage? The honest answer is "increasingly" (the Guardian mentions her position, articles are getting more detailed, and she had some coverage back in 2010 due to the Umbro nomination).

However I need to point out that this is being taken over by events. Apparently PRWEB have gotten in on the act, so Ms Bailey is now being discussed in some depth.

So things are in flux here: sources are growing rapidly due to the coverage and it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Given that, may I ask for a delay of (say) seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th? By then we should have found out whether this is just a flash in the pan or Bailey (continues to) meets the in-depth criteria. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One person's involvement in the Olympic opening ceremony is not notable. She's hardly going to go on and have a world-famous career off the back of this one event. She does not pass notability for her actual career either, per WP:NFOOTBALL. – Pee Jay 18:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability does not derive solely because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony. Her notability derives because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony AND Sky News, The Australian, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Mail etc considered her notable enough to mention her specifically by name whilst ignoring more established celebrities. Her potential career is irrelevant: she has already been found notable by the RSs.

Besides, if you are right and interest fades rapidly, then you'd be happy to wait seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th, since that would then become obvious.

Delete: Not notable either for her part in the Olympic ceremony or her football career. The general notability guidelines require significant detailed coverage in reliable sources and Jade Bailey has not received this yet. The references to reliable sources only mention her name and don't go into any detail, and the example above is only a press release, so it isn't reliable. And for the comment above which says "WP:NFOOTBALL is a non-sequitur", I think if you're going to disambiguate the page as "X (footballer)" then surely you would expect the subject to be notable for their football? Big Dom 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be OK if I put "X (something else)" instead? Serious question. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally if you're right, and interest fades rapidly, then you'd be happy to wait seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th, since that would then become obvious. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your first question; no, then she'd just be non-notable for something else. I was just saying that if you looked at a page disambiguated "footballer", you would expect it to be about a notable footballer. And secondly yeah, if in the next seven days reliable sources start discussing her in detail then I'll change my vote and if not I'll keep it the same. Cheers, Big Dom 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: quite prepared to wait seven days to see if notability increases and other sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL: everything in it is in the past tense. WP:CRYSTAL applies to Wikipedia articles, not Wikipedia:AfDs. Otherwise it would be legitimate for me to delete this AfD on the grounds that it has no sources at all. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. since one might reasonably expect that this might emerge from the local press. Perhaps other editors feel it's easier to delete now and re-create if there is more material in a week's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That specific precedent is discussed in WP:TIND. There is no rush to delete articles. A debate can be had now, but a simple seven day delay will resolve it to everyone's satisfaction. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really CRYSTAL, this discussion is going to be open for seven days now so there's no harm in using that time to wait before making a decision if he wants to. Big Dom 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ONEEVENT. Having a minor role in a minor event (compared to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) does not make her notable. Adam4267 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned in many leading papers, but that's it. I can't see any reason to believe Bailey will become a major news subject in the next 7 days. PRWeb is a distributer of press releases, therefore doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Bailey hasn't yet played for the senior national team so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. However, if she suddenly becomes the subject of reliable news articles, I'll happily change my recommendation. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. So, to summarise. We meet back here on 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th. We already know Bailey has obtained widespread coverage from numerous verifiable RSs on three continents. The only thing that remains is the "significant" element. We know that a PR firm has issued a press release discussing her in greater depth. But a PR firm is not a RS (except of itself, but I digress). If in the next 7 days a RS covers her in greater depth other than a brief mention of "Jade Bailey, footballer", then she passes notability to everybody's satisfaction and the debate is resolved. If not, then not. Either way, we can get back to our work. For the avoidance of doubt, the RS would have to be bigger than the local paper so Hampshire Evening Gazette (or whatever) wouldn't be good enough, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your edit summary - there is no consensus to wait until any specific time/date. This AfD will run for 7 days, plenty of time for you to change the minds of the editors who wish to delete this article. Giant Snowman 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably "There is no rush to delete articles" covers precisely that. However, you misunderstand me. I am not going to sneak behind everybody's back and my edit history will confirm that. I'm going to go away and do other things, (although I may still work on the article). Why? Because this problem is easy: if everybody just backs off and waits seven days, the problem resolves itself one way or the other. So let's do that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and if the Hampshire Evening Gazette, or any other reputable local news source runs a feature on her, it will all count towards her profile. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Waltham Forest Gazette do? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. But you're OK with the delay to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is normal, ~~as everyone knows~~. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often I get to say this, but I genuinely didn't know that. Well I'll go to the foot of my sock. Thank you for that, that was genuinely helpful. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless coverage more significant than the current extremely fleeting mentions turns up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So we're on for the delay to 21:00 UTC Sunday August 5th: nothing more significant pops up, it's gone. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and sorry but the sources regarding her olympic involement just mentions that is was young hopefuls who lit the torch, no mention of Ms Bailey at all. Seasider91 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't one of the torchlighters: she was in the torch relay on the boat, just in front of David Beckham on the boat. The article mentions twelve references - Guardian, Bailey Football Academy, Daily Mail, Arsenal LFC, The Australian, Sky News, The FA (3 times), Umbro and football.co.uk. All those sources refer to Jade Bailey by name. You can check via the article here: Jade Bailey (footballer). If you would like to tell me the specific source you were looking at then I can show you where Bailey is mentioned there. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I switched on Wikipedia today to find out about the person who accompanied Beckham on the Olympic torch relay. I tried other sites first but facts about Ms Bailey were scattered all over the net. HERE, finally, there is a complete biography, all I wanted - and then I notice that other users are really debating whether to delete it! Do keep the article, guys. Cyan22 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how you can describe this as a "complete biography". Where was she born? When? How old is she? (BTW - She is described as a 14-year old in the article dated 8 September 2010) Why did Umbro select her in 2010 "as one of the next generation of England's footballing stars" (the article cited merely describes her as "one of the best prospects in the England Women’s team")? Are there any reports of her actually playing for Arsenal? This article needs a lot of work before it's anywhere near "complete". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not complete (my mistake) but certainly more comprehensive than any other biography I've found of her so far. The things you mentioned are missing indeed, the more I think the article should be kept so that these things can be added by other users once they become available. The article does need a lot of work but users will probably only want to contribute if they know the article won't be deleted. Therefore: Keep Cyan22 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point, Cyan22. If I was a new contributor and I came here and saw five votes to delete and only two to keep, I might well think "what's the point". But I'm not sure there is any way around this - for articles that really are "no-hopers", I guess it stops people wasting their time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far, a waanabe; wannabe footballer, wannabe model, wannabe celebrity isn't yet clear, which is not unreasonable for a 16 year old. She has had one big, and one minor, PR opportunity. Whether she actually achieves anything on the back of those opportunities remains to be seen, but until she does, there is no notability. And before the page creator posts yet again about waiting until Sunday evening, I would point out that we should wait until notability is established, then create the article, not the other way around. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Notability is not conferred by achievement. It is conferred by being noted. Reliable sources giving her significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she has achieved nothing. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by her prominent appearance in the Olympic opening ceremony. Deb (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has multiple reliable sources. --Vclaw (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails WP:NFOOTY. As far as her fleeting appearance in the Olympic opening ceremony goes, well of course it will be mentioned in the press but her being there is oh so small a part. I would change my vote if there were real, reliable sources on Bailey herself and her achievements not just standing on a boat, modelling a shirt and her admiration for John Terry and Ashley Cole.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is not relevant to whether she is notable or not: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTY, but we do not delete Tony Blair. Addistionally, the article does contain "real, reliable" sources. I do note (and concur) with a need for an in-depth, hence the seven days thing.

Keep (I forgot to vote) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) See below for revote[reply]
Comment. the situation is this:

Being a wannabe model, wannabe footballer, whatever is not relevant to whether she is notable or not. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds to delete.
WP:NFOOTY is not relevant to whether she is notable or not: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTY, but we do not delete Tony Blair.
So what does confer notability? Broadly, notability is conferred by being noted. Specifically, reliable sources giving significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she is a wannabe who fails WP:NFOOTY.
We know that she has recieved widespread coverage from many reliable sources so there is at least a prima-facie case for notability.
Somebody above has pointed out that to make the coverage "significant" it has to be in-depth as well as widespread. Fair enough. we know that Umbro did an in-depth piece on her in 2010 and we know PRWEB lauded her "yesterday" and Newsround interviewed her "today" (definition of "today"/"yesterday" depending on where you are). So we're kinda edging towards it here.
I suggested the delay to because then the problem solves itself: either she gets in-depth coverage from an independent-of-her RS or she doesn't - if she does she passes WP:GNG and the article's in, if not then delete away.
I am informed by Sokal above that AfDs have a minimum period of 7 days anyway, so that also suggests that approach. Remember, "There is no rush to delete articles"
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the situation is this:

She has gained not one in-depth real, reliable source on herself. Not the Olympic event, not the shirt adverts and not her membership of a youth football team. There is no doubt the opening ceremony is notable but what is needed is something to show Bailey's notable achievements which would demonstrate why she is notable in Wiki terms. At the moment we have her on a boat and modelling a shirt. --Egghead06 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not needed. Notability is not conferred by notable achievements. It is conferred by being noted. Reliable sources giving her significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she has achieved nothing. Incidentally, why do you use the word "real"? Are you contending that the sources are fictional? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither has Bailey been prime minister of the UK or launched a major war against anyone, therefore repeated comparisons with Tony Blair are irrelevant. She is, however, a footballer so WP:NFOOTY is completely relevant as an alternative means of proving notability. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:NFOOTY is a relevant means of proving notability for a footballer. But it is not the *only* means of proving notability for a footballer. It is possible for someone to be a footballer and fail WP:NFOOTY and still be notable. Albert Camus, Pope John Paul II, Che Guevara, Niels Bohr and Vladimir Nabokov are all goalkeepers who would fail WP:NFOOTY. But they retain notability because of the other things they did. Nobody is saying that Bailey passes WP:NFOOTY. But that doesn't automatically make her nonnotable. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:1E, all of the coverage is about the opening ceremony rather than her as a footballer. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E doesn't mean "if a person was in a (notable) single event then that person is nonnotable". It means "if a person was in a (notable) single event then that person is not automatically notable". Notability is conferred by being noted. If one is sufficiently noted then one is notable, even if it is for one event (see Erica Roe). I discussed the question of Bailey's notability above, esp. the requirement for an in-depth coverage by a RS. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree that the coverage she has received meets WP:GNG. She was a minor part in the opening ceremony. --Jimbo^[online] 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second point (about the minorness of her part) is not relevant (notability is not earned by achievement, it is conferred by coverage). However I do note your ~~second~~ first point that you do not think that the coverage she has received meets WP:GNG. I assume you have read the list of the coverage she *has* achieved and found it inadequate. So we need to find out what coverage you *would* find adequate. I mentioned above we need an in-depth from a RS. Would that meet your requirements? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the sources again I have found Ms Bailey being mentioned but that is all. One passing mention for one event DOES NOT confer notability. This article therefore also fails WP:ONEEVENT as well Seasider91 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that one passing mention for one event does not confer notability. But Bailey has received *several* passing mentions for one event from *several* RS's *plus* an in-depth from Umbro for another event *plus* an enconium from a PR firm *plus* a televised interview from Newsround *plus* Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate her publicly. To characterize that as "one passing mention for one event" is difficult to sustain. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people who have lit the Olympic Cauldron. Delete. This is only one event, and a full-blown biography seems excessive. Fortunately we do have a very specific article for this scenario: List of people who have lit the Olympic Cauldron. There is definitely scope to expand the 2012 row to give all seven flame lighters the coverage they deserve, without creating seven full-blown biographies on otherwise low-profile individuals. —WFC— 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was the penultimate torchbearer wasn't she, albeit on a speedboat? She didn't light the cauldron. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she was one of the seven as well? Evidently not. If the event doesn't warrant a mention in another article that's unfortunate, but the rationale that a full-blown biography is excessive stands. —WFC— 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is always 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay. I would think (if she isn't already) she should definitely be mentioned there. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is already mentioned there. The "mention" is a link to the article... Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate point, everybody says Bailey fails WP:NFOOTY. But Bailey has played for England U-15s, England U-17s, is signed to Arsenal and sources keep saying she is part of Team GB (is she?). At what point does she actually *pass* WP:NFOOTY? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When she plays for her country at the highest level (not youth) or makes an appearance in a fully professional league. If she had played for GB or England she would pass.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a serious answer to a serious question, I appreciate it Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Can be restored if she gets a full cap. Number 5 7 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:NFOOTY equals notable, but failing WP:NFOOTY doesn't equal nonnotable. Pope John Paul II is a former goalkeeper who fails WP:NFOOTY but we do not delete Pope John Paul II. He was noted for the other things he did and so passed WP:GNG. Anameofmyveryown (talk)

keep: she's been interviewed on BBC national television: [1] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've appeared on ITV and CBC - do I get an article as well? Giant Snowman 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you carried the Olympic Torch, in a speed-boat, down the Thames, with David Beckham, watched by a global TV audience of 1 bn, and have played football for your country, then yeah sure, why not. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youth football not the national team. Loads of people carried the torch and have been down the Thames and met David Beckham. All that marks her few seconds of fame is that she was seen by a global audience and got a name check. --Egghead06 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that arguably she has accrued sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG (I assume I don't have to list *all* the sources again?) Characterizing this as a "name check" is difficult to sustain. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, never mind, Snowman. Better luck next time, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have received several passing mentions for several RS's plus an in-depth from Umbro plus an enconium from a PR firm plus a televised interview plus Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate you publicly, then yes, you would. Arguably sufficient reliable sources had given you sufficient significant coverage for you to pass WP:GNG. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "passing mention" is not the same as "significant coverage" as determined by GNG - so you are admitting she's non-notable? Giant Snowman 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had said that she had recieved "a passing mention" then you would be correct. But I did not say that. I said that she had received several passing mentions for several RS's plus an in-depth from Umbro plus an enconium from a PR firm plus a televised interview on Newsround plus Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate her publicly. I then went on to say that (therefore) arguably sufficient reliable sources have given her sufficient significant coverage for her to pass WP:GNG. We can safely conclude I was arguing that the article be kept due to her notability. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay until/unless she meets notability guidelines. No problem merging a couple of sentences of sourced information from this article to that one to provide appropriate context for her participation in the torch ceremony. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article be redirected if Bailey is not notable. The question which we need to address (of course) is whether she is or is not notable. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy incubate until August 5. Notability is in flux, nothing to be gained by keeping this AfD open or this article in mainspace until then. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) window for a speedy incubate has elapsed, striking dated !vote, Unscintillating (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no rush to delete articles". Additionally I am informed by Sokal above that AfDs have a minimum period of 7 days. Lack of profit is not grounds for article deletion. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. I think you mean Sionk? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: it was User:Sionk not User:Sokal who mentioned the minimum 7 days. Incidentally, User:Sionk also said that a reputable local news source would do. Cue the Waltham Forest Gazette Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Waltham Forest Gazzette? Seriously? If one article in a paper of that level is sufficient to pass WP:GNG then my wife's way more notable, in the course of her job she's been interviewed by our local paper about five times..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had said that one mention in the Waltham Forest Gazette was sufficient to pass WP:GNG then you would be correct. But I did not say that. I said that User:Sionk thought a reputable local news source would do, and I was correct - he did think that (see above). So I gave him the link. Incidentally, I think (I might be wrong) Bailey had a BBC Radio 5 Live interview. Any ideas where I can find it? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said local news sources were perfectly acceptable as reliable sources. Unfortuantely the Waltham Forest Gazette article tells us little more than we already know. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does tell us how she got be on the boat - she trained (and lives) in the area (same area as Beckham is from, incidentally) and was nominated by Waltham Forest Council to take part. Previous entries for the same newspaper yield further detail. If not sufficient for WP:GNG, it certainly helps with the article. We have lots of bits and pieces and the article may be passing WP:GNG thru sheer mass of sources, although (as I say above) I would prefer an in-depth from a RS, since that would satisfy most of the people on this AfD. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what is she 'notable' for? Is she a footballer - no fails WP:NFOOTY. Is she a career model, athlete, singer, anything? Not that we can see from reliable sources. Of course she will be given passing mentions. That's the age we live in. Twitter, newsfeeds, papers etc. etc. But for Ms Bailey not one article on her alone and her achievments, just name-checks. Just a brief moment in time on a boat with Beckham on The Thames. --Egghead06 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but a person does not have to be notable 'for' anything to be notable. Notability is not earned by achievement, it is conferred by coverage. So the question is not whether Bailey has earned notability, the question is whether she has received significant detailed coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I assume you have read the list of the coverage she *has* achieved and found it inadequate. So we need to find out what coverage you *would* find adequate. I mentioned above we need an in-depth from a RS. Would that meet your requirements? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She could write a blog and tell us how she got on the boat. Local rags don't confer notability and their scope generally isn't very wide. --Jimbo^[online] 14:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. And oddly enough she did do something similar via her Twitter account. And if the only RS that had mentioned her was the local paper, then this AfD would have been a far shorter discussion...:-) But she did recieve way more than that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC) I've been arguing (correctly) above that Bailey is notable due to the weight and breadth of sources passing the WP:GNG threshold, and others have been arguing (less correctly) that her failure of WP:NFOOTY and lack of achievement render her non-notable. But in all the kerfuffle we all seem to be forgetting the subject of the article is still only a sixteen-year-old girl. We all know that article sources are easy to find on the net: I once found a picture of a politician shaking hands with neo-Nazis, for example. But even so I was shocked to discover how much info there is online about Bailey. In writing the article I've blurred things a bit by omitting her middle name, the name of her mother and her exact birth date. But even so it's hitting the point where we could commit identity theft and the girl is still only a minor (OK, she's an adult in the England and Wales jurisdiction, but even so). So what I suggest is:[reply]

Give me until Sunday to chase up the Radio 5 Live interview, other sources, and wrap up the article.
After Sunday, redirect the article to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay.
When she plays for England or Arsenal as an adult she'll pass WP:NFOOTY and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football contributors can resurrect the article from the edit history.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I don't think even UEFA allows this, do they? haha. But seems fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anameofmyveryown - you've given two recommendations now, you should strike through the one that no longer applies. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for Arsenal will only lead to the article being resurrected if the league goes fully pro. And u18 is not adult in English law. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her age is immaterial to her notability; and the point about the women's league not being pro, when the men's league is, smacks of systemic bias (Wikipedia's, not yours personally). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against women. The league needs to be fully professional. The ladies league where Arsenal L.F.C. play isn't.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs - the women's league not being fully-pro is not biased, it's factual. Giant Snowman 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the women's league is not fully professional may indeed be a fact. It is our use of that (when the equivalent league for men is professional) as a yardstick to judge notability which carries the bias. My name's Andy, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The league only needs [sic] to be professional because we choose to say so; we could as easily say, for example, the "top three leagues", or "the top 20 percent" or some such measure, which would not carry the bias. This discussion probably belongs on the SB talk page, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that age is irrelevant to notability: in fact, I argue strongly above that she is notable due to amassing enough sources cumulatively to pass WP:GNG. And if I put the work in I could write a fully-sourced article that starts "Jade XXXXXX Bailey, (born XXXXXX November 1995, Waltham Forest, England), daughter of Trevor and XXXXXX Bailey, sister of XXXXXX, is a footballer. She lives at XXXXXX, XXXXXX. She attended XXXXXX Primary School as a child then attended XXXXXX before signing for Arsenal LFC. She is currently on holiday in XXXXXX with her friends XXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX and is also friends to...." because it's all online. But I'm not really comfortable with that level of detail about a minor being available in one place. Hence my volte-face. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the systemic bias thing: make a list of all men's leagues, make a list of all women's leagues, count the number of professional leagues in the former, count the number of professional leagues in the latter, work out the proportion of men's leagues that are professional, work out the proportion of women's leagues that are professional. If the proportions are too different, then you have a systemic bias. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt non-professional football gets far less resources, lower standards and far less coverage. Maybe things will change with UK womens football after the Olympics but, either way, it is a systematic bias in society, not in Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No doubt non-professional football gets […] lower standards" - that's an unsupported assertion; ergo there is doubt. "systematic bias in society, not in Wikipedia" There is bias in the yardstick we use to measure notability; but I've already addressed that above, and suggested a forum where this would be more on-topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 August 2012 (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.