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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madalyn Schiffel[edit]

Madalyn Schiffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A number of You tube videos focussing on her but all produced either by her college or the conference in which she competed. Therefore primary sources ineligible for GNG.
  2. Brief article but from a blog recognised as her college's official blog. Therefore primary source ineligible for GNG.
  3. Detailed career summary but from a club that she used to play for, not really independant enough for GNG.
  4. Reasonably lengthy article from her norwegian club but again a primary source.
  5. Couple of paragraphs of analysis following her draft. The only thing of note I could find from an independent source.
Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What WP:FPL means is that consensus has been achieved that the league in question is "fully professional", i.e. that all clubs in a given league are professional and the players for the first team don't need to work in any other jobs. Whilst therefore, there maybe "professional elements" in the Toppsieren (I presume Madalyn is professional as she has moved from the US), not all the clubs, nor all the players are, or at least no consensus has been reached that they are. Confusingly, this does not mean they are not, simply that no discussion has been had around the league in question. This is not particularly useful for women's football as there is a globally lower level of professionalism due to the lower level of popularity / coverage the game gets. As such, most female players who are not senior internationals need to rely on GNG. In this instance I don't see it and although the player is a regular at her club in Norway, I don't think she has been there long enough to have generated significant independent coverage (interviews and the like) in Norwegian sources. Fenix down (talk)
Ok, fair enough. I will go with your better judgement, then, and support a deletion. (It can be difficult to use WP:GNG for sports and competitive fields, I've had the same difficulty with eSports topics at AFD recently.) KaisaL (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misinterpreted my list. WP:BASIC is not met because all substantial coverage of this player comes from primary sources. The link you have provided goes a little way to GNG but is insufficient on its own. Fenix down (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'll need to search on https://www.google.no and do some translation as well. Some refs have been added. Article needs expansion, not deletion.. Hmlarson (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, she satisfies the WP:BIO#Sports personalities, even when she might fail WP:NFOOTBALLER. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2016 (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.