- Jade Bailey (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
It's a Redirect and because we have some people who can't read that she has played 4 times for arsenal and won the FA cup or get the notion that it's a redirect we're here. So full view because 4 games for arsenal, fa cup winner, significant coverage from her Olympic role. I understand that she was redirected for not being notable for her Olympic stuff that's ridiculous when we have Olympic flamelighter who are notable for nothing else with an article. 92.22.95.103 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Born 11th November 1995, played in two (victorious) games for the England girls' under-17s, got on a boat with David Beckham, all data I could easily find with 10 minutes' search on Duckduckgo. I think we had some of our more special needs deletionists taking part in that AfD, and on a personal note I'd rather have kept that article, but Mark Arsten came to a reasonable outcome that was well within discretion.
However, we're now a year on and a good-faith editor wants to re-create the article. Permit recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD if someone really thinks AfDing this material is a good use of our volunteer time...—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, keep in mind, I had been an admin for less than a week when I closed this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject still doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL because the Womens Super League is not a fully professional soccer league. The only thing that has changed subsequent to the AfD discussion (where all these issues were addressed at length) is she has played several games for Arsenal Ladies. I'm a fan of the womens football game (having just watched the European Championships) but I'm not entirely sure the above contributors have addressed why they are making Jade Bailey an exception. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's the argument that was made during the AfD: Tony Blair doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY either, shall we delete his article too? Jade Bailey was an England girls' under-17s footballer, and as you correctly point out, she isn't notable for being a footballer. She was also an olympic torchbearer, and she isn't notable for that either. But combine the two and you get significant coverage in reliable sources: 1, 2, 3, and it's easy to find more. The argument is that she isn't notable for meeting WP:NFOOTY; she's notable because of all the reliable sources that have noticed her.—S Marshall T/C 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument of the IP is that because she has played some games for the Arsenal Ladies senior team she now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. She's a footballer, unlike Tony Blair. There's been no additional news coverage about her since the AfD. Sionk (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - First and foremost, I would like to ask S Marshall to practice a bit common sense and civility. Euphemistically referring to delete !voters at the afd as mentally handicapped is way out of line. The sources mentioned above were considered and rejected at the last afd. Given that, as pointed out above, the close was procedurally correct, the question becomes has the subject changed significantly. Since the afd, Ms Bailey has received little to no coverage, and as already stated, she still fails the football specific notability guidelines, meaning the close is correct today as it was a year ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect close (nothing to do with the admin more with the discussion) featured heavily on NFootball. When the subject easily passes General notability guidelines. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]""
Check for all four no reason for article not to be there. 92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I see very little evidence that the AfD considered those sources. The Waltham Forest Gazette source was mentioned on 1st August after most of the discussion was over, and rejected by a "consensus" of two users, both of whom had been vociferously pro-deletion throughout. There were other sources that the AfD did consider and reject, and we could have a discussion about whether it was right to do so, but I don't think that's necessary to overturn the deletion given what the closer says above. The AfD spent the majority of its discussion time considering, at enormous length, whether Jade Bailey meets WP:NFOOTY. There are good reasons why Deletion Review has never had much patience with specific notability guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However passes GNG as we had a newsround reference which was from the BBC, an FA Cup final win with sources from BBC and the FA stating that she took part. Just an aside here are you really going to say that some one who plays in the third division of some random countries league system is more notable just because it's professional when we have someone who has won the national cup. England under 19 call up I know that's crystal but I looked on the FA website and apparently U19 Euro's next month. But combined with 4 appearances and counting for Arsenal the biggest and probably most well known women's team in the country, an FA cup win and Olympic appearances she easily passes General notability as secondary sources have been found and used e.g. the BBC. 92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't chase down the links in the article, but I'm seeing that she plays for the women's soccer team with the best record in England, has a sponsorship from a major manufacturer and had 1,000,000,000 people watch her do something. I can't say that this was closed wrongly--the consensus was fairly clear. But at the least I'd like to see a relist here. She clearly meets WP:N and WP:BLP1E. Not meeting a SNG isn't a good reason to delete, especially when she is potentially notable for two things, the subject area being only one. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. Coverage in reliable secondary sources still does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or any of our notability guidelines by a long shot, even if all are taken together. A minor sports figure at best. Sorry, but there's a lot of puffery going on here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse properly closed discussion, no new evidence of any massive shift in notability that would change the situation. Besides, our notability guidelines for athletes are by far our most lenient of any of the biography notability guidelines (some might even say ridiculously lenient), so any athlete who can't pass even that very very low standard isn't likely to be a reasonable encyclopedic biography subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - does she meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL? No, so she is not notable enough as a footballer. Her exploits at the Olympics are a case of WP:BLP1E so the redirect makes perfect sense. GiantSnowman 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, speedy close, and remand to a non-deletion venue There is no deletion to review here. The decision to be made is an editorial decision, and restoration of the article as stand-alone is explicitly and correctly supported by the closing. Redirect without delete is not binding out of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - A recent AfD reflected a growing consensus that NFOOTBALL is unfit for purpose in the case of female footballers (or, particularly unfit for purpose in the case of female footballers). Since the AfD Bailey has played in the national Cup final - described by the BBC as "the Gunners' next big star" - and is now apparently starting games at the top level for the biggest women's club in the UK. Would a comparable male player ever be deleted? Such harebrained, overtly discriminatory notability guidelines do nothing but bring shame to the entire project. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no reflection on Wikipedia or the dedication, athleticism and skill of women football players, it's simply the case that British womens football (and hence the players) gets far less coverage than the men's game. You should vent your anger at the media and the major British football clubs. Sionk (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to some extent. See WP:BIAS. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or just restore If she played in the top level women's clubs, she's as notable as if she played in the men's clubs. If the top level women's clubs in a country are not fully professional, it's still the top level. The place to carry out further argument is at a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and permit recreation - There is nothing wrong with re-creating an article that was previously deleted, a year ago in this case, as long as the article isn't identical to the deleted one and has a stronger case of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and permit recreation The AfD was by the book, most of the delete !voters were evaluating whether Bailey passes WP:GNG or not, but I agree with Oakshade: There is a stronger claim for notability now versus one year ago, (even though playing for a club in the women's top-flight confers no notability) and she might have received some coverage for her appearances for Arsenal LFC, and if someone wants to write a detailed article about her why shouldn't they be allowed? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
