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 no consensus. Those arguing for the deletion of these article make a valid point with regard to WP:ATHLETE. On the other hand, a very plausible case under the general notability guideline was presented by those arguing to keep the articles. A similar number of people supported each of these positions (particularly if the "per noms" are excluded). Thus, there is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. It is also very difficult to consider the notability of 6 different people under the GNG in the same AfD, so it would be best if any future nominations were made separately for each of these individuals (it seems looking at the articles and sources presented that some may be much more notable than others). Cool3 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Angeli[edit]

Non-notable soccer player who has no senior international caps, appearances for a professional club, or Olympic experience, thus failing all points of WP:FOOTYN GauchoDude (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my own nom. GauchoDude (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - For starters, WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not even a guideline. Second, it says (in bold) "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." All of these people have played for the U-23 or U-21 US national team, which by itself is a very strong indication of notability. Additionally, several of them have won nationally recognized awards. I did Google News searches on them all and all were covered in 50+ news stories. Yes some of that coverage is game reports and such, but every lady mentioned here had at least 3 stories that were about them rather than about a game they played in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:FOOTYN may be an essay, but WP:ATHLETE is not, and they all appear to fail it as none of them have played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per nom. WP:FOOTYN is an essay, you are correct. An essay that "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion". And sure, people could be notable without passing those criteria. Maybe they wrote a best selling book before they took up the sport. That would make them notable without passing WP:FOOTYN. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are correct, they fail WP:ATHLETE - I should have made that clear before. However, this is an inclusion criteria, not an exclusionary one. Someone can be notable under the GNG even if they are an amateur. 98% of amateur athletes are not notable - these ladies are in the 2%. All of them have major accomplishments (such as playing for the US national team) that have been documented by multiple reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They have not played for the national team, they have played youth internationals. There is long-standing agreement that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is an even longer standing guideline that non-trivial coverage in multiple RS confers notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jordan Angeli easily meets the general notability requirement WP:N with numerous articles in major publications. [1], in which I can quickly see one of the other nominees mentioned. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, that link is not an article about Angeli. It is a match report which mentions her by name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was one of many - and probably not the best one, it looks like someone has done quite a good list below. She easily meets the general notability requirements. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, as non-notable. Giant Snowman 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Knowitall (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start over. I obviously didn't explain myself well to begin with. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)

“

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

”

It then goes on to list some guidelines to help judge whether someone is likely to be notable. One of these is for athletes, commonly referred to as WP:ATHLETE which states that professionals at the highest level of their sport are normally notable. As current college players, none of these women meet that criteria. However the document in question states:

“

"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included...

Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (bold is original)

”

It baffles my mind that people can effectively say "all pros are notable and no amateurs are." This is absurd, as the top college players are (barring major injury or personal choice) sure to have professional careers that are more significant that the bare minimum "1 minute on the field in 1 game" criteria.

All of the players nominated here are in top couple % of all college players as evidenced by the significant amount of coverage they have received in reliable sources. The following is a representative (but by no means exhaustive) list of sources for each player:

Jordan Angeli

Kelsey Davis

Ashlyn Harris

Amanda Poach

Michelle Enyeart

Lauren Fowlkes

Obviously each player has a different level of notability, but all appear to have sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion. That is unless one is arguing that no college player can ever be notable, regardless of sources/accomplishments. I would appreciate it if future comments talked about the individual players instead of just saying "delete all - only pros can be notable." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fail WP:ATHLETE notability. No real coverage except for trivial sources, so they fail WP:N. Youth caps, winning awards, being named player of the match, being named in an "All-American" team etc etc does not confer notability as it's on a semi-professional or amateur level. --Jimbo^[online] 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how being the the sole subject of an article represent "trivial coverage." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial in the sense that they're going to get a bit of coverage for playing a nn level. The few articles linked that the people in question are "sole sbjects" are subjective to WP:NOTNEWS anyway. 212.85.13.114 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If they were notable aside from their athletic achievements then I'd argue for inclusion. But the only notability claims they have are for playing soccer, and we have a standard for that at WP:ATHLETE. It has been argued that these players are "sure to have professional careers"; that's all well and good, and when that time comes they'd clearly satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I'm not convinced that the amount and nature of coverage for these athletes is sufficient to warrant an exception from our athlete notability standards. -- Atama ^chat 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list of coverage in reliable sources given convinces me that the athletes satisfy the general criteria of WP:BIO. Further the All American mention qualifies as a notable award for me that satisfies WP:BIO. The additional criteria of WP:ATHLETE is not an exclusive criteria. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what part of being named "All-American" satisfies WP:BIO? --Jimbo^[online] 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Look at WP:ANYBIO. I consider All-American designations to be notable awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I don't see how the award can be notable when there isn't even a consensus on which publication or list is the premiere authority. While it's a decent gauge to start, it definitely does not automatically confer notability. GauchoDude (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't see how winning an award in a league that doesn't make you notable in itself (as it's not fully-pro as WP:ATH states) passes anything. --Jimbo^[online] 07:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        By that logic, winning an award can only make you notable if you are part of a league that already makes you automatically notable. Thus, winning an award is always meaningless for establishing notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, that is directed at people who are not athletes, otherwise people who win awards in amateur/semi-professional leagues such as the Essex Senior League or Kent League would become notable. Hence, why WP:ATHLETE is the criteria set for athletes. --Jimbo^[online] 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Failing to meet one of the additional inclusion criteria (such as ATHLETE) is not an automatic disqualification. WP:Notability (people) makes this clear: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Additionally, the awards line is found under the heading "Any biography" It doesn't say "any one who isn't an athlete" it says anyone who "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is notable.
        
        At least according to the plain language of the document, playing 1 pro game is an automatic qualifier, but not playing 1 pro game is not an automatic disqualifier. Clearly there are many editors who feel no one can ever be notable for amateur athletics. That is perfectly legitimate opinion to have; however, our notability guidelines do not support that opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - There is no pyramid system in American soccer, and the professional leagues draw from college players. Comparing with soccer/football systems elsewhere in the world is a false analogy. Players meet WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:ATHLETE anyway. Strikehold (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because, according to you, there is no pyramid system does not mean Americans get to dodge the rules set in place. There is, in fact, a pyramid system, however it is not continuous between the leagues (therefore no promotion/relegation). When the players in question become professionals, then create the article. Simple as. This argument is re-done every year with the MLS draft and is getting very old. GauchoDude (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is, in fact, a pyramid system, however [there is] no promotion/relegation." QED. That is not a pyramid system. Every sports-related AfD people toss around WP:ATHLETE without regard to WP:BIO and that is getting very old. Strikehold (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all news coverage does not automatically confer notability, especially when such coverage is trivial and does not discuss the subject in a minimum required amount of detail. And all these articles are a clear example of what I am saying. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of which can be found at WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo^[online] 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of news events that have no lasting importance (such as individual sports games). Game coverage doesn't make an athlete notable, but articles written about them should. If athletes can't be notable for being in the news, then almost no athlete can ever be notable (ignoring that pros are automatically notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - by Wikipedia's definition, news coverage DOES confer notability. The links provided show that these players have clearly achieved the necessary notability by the primary criteria. matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All they all basically have potential notability but do not requirs articles until they are actually notable--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and recreate the articles once they have each established themselves as a professional player. MacMed^talk _stalk 02:01, 29 June 2009 (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.