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 WP:TRAINWRECK. Anybody is free to immediately renominate any or all of these. But, please do them as individual AfDs, per the If you're unsure, don't bundle it warning in WP:MULTIAFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Carrandi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 10:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed some in your list above - can you add the others you've PROD'ed GiantSnowman. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing as it does not meet WP:GNG -Handoto 00:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)
Comment, "(never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability.", WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", does it matter that it is not fully professional? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because otherwise we would have articles about players in the top-league of every country in the world - see WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if it is deemed to be "major" (of course not to be decided here but at the relevant project talkpage) why not? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed by whom? A WikiProject (understandably) determined to retain articles within their narrow remit? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Simply does not compute with either of the relevant notability guidelines. Giant Snowman 14:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, deemed by the wikicommunity, it is nsports that says presumed notable if participated in a major competition not a single wikiproject, if the wikicommunity agrees with the "narrow" guidelines of some wikiprojects and to clarify the apparent contradition here, the word "presumed" that appears in nsport could be changed to "may"? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News results in the US indicate this article needs expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD, not deletion. She plays in the highest league in Mexico. I bet I can guess who will close this AfD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 pages nominated. You have tried to improve one of them. What about the rest? Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split them up and we'll get to work GiantSnowman. You're welcome to help us improve the articles. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These need separate AfDs (per WP:MULTIAFD policy reference inserted 5/2/18 ). So we can address each one individually. Hmlarson (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a simple Google News search for Priscila Padilla yielded a number of articles. I've added some to the article:

"Daniela Pulido, del bullying al éxito femenil". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Tenemos con qué pelear contra cualquiera: Daniela Pulido". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Chivas femenil: Daniela Pulido: "Chivas es más que un equipo, es una familia" - MARCA Claro México". MARCA Claro México (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
Redacción. "Lo vamos a sacar adelante: Daniela Pulido". Milenio (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.

Hmlarson (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree with the above comment that separate AfDs might be more useful, but at the moment, the efforts to add sources to one of them are not indicating GNG, with the majority of them being very brief articles or single quotes from the player. Fundamentally we are dealing with a number of players here who have barely played any football at all. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot they all fail the notability guidelines for footballers, which are ridiculously low as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but 30k+ spectators would likely disagree. Let's see if they beat their last record-setting 38,230 attendance at the final this Friday. ref 1 ref 2 Hmlarson (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, do you think there will be more articles about the players after Friday? What's the timeline on this particular AFD? Seven days, right? Still waiting on the others to be created per WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as according to the WP guidelines on notability, "an athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", and Liga MX Femenil is a major competition. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that is not true, that is simply a summary synthesis of the various guidelines covered by NSPORT, you cannot use that to justify a keep vote. You have to use NFOOTY or GNG. NFOOTY clarifies specifically what is considered a "major competition" in football. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's true. WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes Hmlarson (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Given substantial evidence that at least some of these may meet GNG, these should have been nominated separately. This MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [1], [2], and [3], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the distinction between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that NFOOTY's authors didn't write those articles. In everyday English, a league which has "some professional elements" but isn't "fully professional" is semi-professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. When most people who aren't members of NFOOTY, including the authors of those articles, use "professional", they mean "fully professional." Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, the idiosyncracies of wikipedia:))Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH. If the sources describe it as professional, we can't just do our own synthesis and say it isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the source is clearly wrong, we can. Giant Snowman 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not only does a better consensus need to form regarding the original nomination, a better consensus needs to form regarding the appropriateness of the additional nominations within this single AfD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at the final(s) Wow, 51k+ at the Final last Friday ref. And 45k+ at the 2018 FA Women's Cup Final in England the next day ref. Not to get too subjective, but this is an exciting time for women athletes and their fans. Relying on an outdated notability guideline to attempt to delete articles about the players seems rather counter-intuitive at this point. Hmlarson (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I meant to say counter-intuitive and counter-productive ↑. Hmlarson (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. High one-off crowds aren't a justification for notability – there were over 53,000 at the FA Trophy final in 2007 and 40,000–50,000 crowds at most Rangers home matches in 2012–13, but that doesn't mean that National League or Scottish League Two players should be deemed notable. Number 5 7 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SIGCOV with only 2 references, one to a very short bio, the second to a page that does not exist (presumably not archived). The subject does not meet the very low bar set by WP:NFOOTY because the league is not fully professional as required. Even if it was fully professional the line should be drawn somewhere - the page contains very little information about the subject. The subject may be notable in the future, but not right now. One goal in a final and plays in a semi-professional league is all we have. Hmlarson, just because the guidelines are outdated does not mean they should not be followed. Perhaps you should work on amending them if you don't like them. The subject should not get special treatment due to their sex unless it contributes to their notability.

This does not meet the criteria for WP:MULTIAFD, similar subject, with different names or titles and different players of varying ability and coverage. Each page should be judged on its merits. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that WP:NFOOTY is a low bar for men but less so for women in that there are fully professional leagues in far fewer countries. Liga MX Femenil is the highest division of women's football in Mexico, a nation with a rich football history. The letter of the law may not be met here but I do believe the subjects of these pages do meet the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. --J04n(talk page) 19:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Giant Snowman 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that they play in the highest division of women's football in Mexico. When WP:NFOOTY was drafted (I'm obviously assuming here) men's leagues were in mind and the highest levels were fully professional. --J04n(talk page) 11:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But playing in the highest division is not sufficient (again, please read WP:NFOOTBALL) - it has to be fully-professional. By your logic playing in the highest women's division in, say, Fiji would make someone notable? Absolutely ridiculous. Giant Snowman 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously not going to change each other's mind, but I did qualify my statement that Mexico has a rich tradition of football. Cheers --J04n(talk page) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment MurielMary's logic is flawed. There are many men's leagues lower than the highest league in the land that are fully professional. It is not a good comparison. --- I stopped in for a look at the AfD list and saw this one. The page is one of the worst pages I have ever seen. In my opinion it does not belong on Wikipedia. I come from a background of editing and creating pages for scientists, authors, journalists and other notable people; the notability bar is set so much higher. "I graduated college with a PhD, joined a professional association and had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal" just doesn't cut it for notability. Here I see that "I played soccer in the highest league in the land and kicked a goal in a final" and the goal can't be verified because the 6 month old link to the reference is dead, is creating such a long AfD discussion, and its re-listed is just unbelievable. What else has this person done? Where is the in depth coverage? This entry is not worthy of an encyclopaedia. This person does not meet the very low notability bar set by WP:NFOOTY, she is not notable off Wikipedia and she is definitely not notable on Wikipedia. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

- Delete I just removed the invalid references. Now there are none. How is this even a debate? RobP (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Priscila Padilla and Daniela Pulido, delete the others - It appears that these articles can satisfy the GNG (e.g., Proceso article and El Informador article on Padilla and Esférico article and Life and Style magazine selection/write-up on All-Tournament XI on Pulido). I am struggling to find sufficient sourcing for the other articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see points above from Hmlarson and myself). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SPORTSPERSON. There does appear to be more interest in deleting articles about women Mexican footballers than actual adherence to Wikipedia guidelines from some folks here. Particularly interesting when they have admin privileges. Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I do follow guidelines - WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I don't think anyone is arguing (convincingly at least) that these articles satisfy NFOOTBALL (and I don't think Hmlarson's comment above is constructive). However, failure to meet NFOOTBALL is not sufficient grounds for deletion if an article satisfies GNG. Sadly, very few editors appear to be willing to address the GNG (I know, it's more difficult to apply). Jogurney (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:NFOOTY is a very helpful guideline in a lot of instances. Unfortunately, there have been several AfD's I've been associated with where players or coaches who fail WP:NFOOTY are not judged by the voters on WP:GNG merits (which they should have passed, in my opinion) and have been deleted. It's even more difficult for women's football since the number of notable players is greater than the number of professional leagues. This is a classic case: The Liga MX Feminil has come from nowhere to become internationally relevant in the last year. There's a genuine debate as to whether it's fully professional or not (though articles like this aren't helpful: [4]). The question for each of these articles needs to be whether WP:GNG is met for each player individually, ignoring the WP:NFOOTY requirement, and they should not be bundled. Carrandi herself has a ton of relatively routine coverage for her work with Chivas (the news specific to her appears to be too primary), but it's coverage that we would assume notability for in a men's professional league, since there's a ton of coverage. SportingFlyer talk 20:30, 17 May 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.