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 delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nadya Gill[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by the nominator. Not enough independent coverage for WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I am not good at football. But am confused. Isn't the under 17 FIFA world cup a Tier 1 international match as per FIFA? And therefore, would not playing two matches by the subject in the FIFA under 17 World Cup be considered significant per NFOOTBALL? (As I mentioned, I am bad at football and might have got this wrong). Lourdes 13:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, tier one means a match between the senior national teams of two FIFA members. WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sir Sputnik and thanks. Is there some site that shows which matches are classified at what Tier? The FIFA link in the guideline only provides a summary statement (e.g. representative A teams), but does not clearly differentiate. Lourdes 02:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A teams = senior team. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MbahGondrong, which is the RS that confirms this? And the FIFA link also says that even scratch teams can be playing Tier 1 matches. My point is, is there any RS that defines what matches or cups are Tier 1 and so on? How do editors get to know that the FIFA u-17 World cup is not a Tier 1 international match? Thanks. Lourdes 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a scratch team if I may ask? IMHO youth players (even national players) can be seen as reserves for the senior team (A team), I have never heard of any B team/Tier 2 team of an U17 national team. Again its my opinion based on my knowledge of football. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Probably WP:TOOSOON Now that the article's been cleaned up and refs added, should make things easier if/when it's re-published in the future. Hmlarson (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Qualifies on BASIC easily and even on GNG per the following reliable sources which discuss Gill extensively:Concacaf news report feature on Gill titled Canada’s Gill rises to occasion at CWU17, Quchronicle news feature on Gill, Sportzedge news report feature on Gill containing 4-5 paragraphs of reviewing Gill and subsequently an interview too; the report is titled 17-year-old sophomore Nadya Gill leads Quinnipiac soccer into 2016 season, There's one more feature report on Gill ([1]) which can be used within the article, but as it is a University TV channel, I am not considering it. Nevertheless, the other reports comfortably put the subject above BASIC and GNG. Most of these have been included in the subject's article. Lourdes 03:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Quinnipiac Chronicle is a university student newspaper, so it's deprecated as unable to carry notability for the same reason that q30television can't. Sportzedge is "powered by News8" — but "News8", WTNH, is a local television station in Quinnipiac University's own local media market, so it's not a source that can carry WP:GNG all by itself. And because she's played in CONCACAF league events, CONCACAF's own website is a primary source that cannot aid in showing notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and after a review of the sourcing does not quite meet WP:GNG yet. Giant Snowman 07:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi GiantSnowman, from the sources I have mentioned, could you please specify which source does not meet GNG requirement and the reasons you think so? Could you also additionally comment on each source and why do you think the same does not meet the BASIC requirement? Thanks. Lourdes 08:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Quinnipiac Chronicle - semms like a relatively local source, but nonetheless is a significant article on the career of the player so far
News 8 - lengthy interview with player from website run by Connecticut news station. State-level coverage
CONCACAF - dedicated article on player from continental football association

There's also plenty of more routine coverage out there on her college / international career that can be used to flesh this article out. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per @Lourdes:. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The sources being bruited about here do not confer passage of WP:GNG. One (Quchronicle) is the student newspaper at her own university, which is a class of sourcing that is specifically deprecated as not able to carry notability at all (which Lourdes already knows, because they did deprecate another piece of student media sourcing as not assisting the case — they just maybe didn't realize that this source was also student media); one (Sportsedge) is the local television station in her university's local media market, and is thus not enough to carry notability as an article's only GNG-eligible source; CONCACAF is a primary source since she's in CONCACAF. So no, BASIC and GNG have not been met by those sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CONCACAF, is not of close affiliation to her nor "directly involved" - much like if FIFA has an article about a player. If it was her team, that would be another story. Hmlarson (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what's known as a distinction without a difference. It's neither unprecedented, nor even particularly unusual, for CONCACAF to publish press releases to its own website about the ongoing career development of people who've played on CONCACAF member teams — so it's not "unaffiliated" just because she's one step removed from direct personal membership in the organization. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So who is she "directly involved" with at CONCACAF? For editors who may not be familiar with the hierarchy:

Player --> Team --> League --> National Federation (Canada Soccer Association) --> Regional Federation (CONCACAF) --> International (FIFA)
or in this case...
Player --> Team --> National Federation (Canada Soccer Association) --> Regional Federation (CONCACAF) --> International (FIFA) Hmlarson (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter how many in-between steps there are in the tree of association. If she's had any form of association with CONCACAF at all, then CONCACAF is still an affiliated primary source regardless of how many intermediaries you can add to the relationship diagram. And even if you ignore that fact, it's also the case that CONCACAF isn't media, but an organization, and thus still wouldn't count as a notability-conferring source anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources." WP:PRIMARY Your interpretation is a bit different than other editors here. Hmlarson (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously, I need to rephrase myself, because that isn't actually in conflict with what I said. If she's had any form of association with CONCACAF at all, then CONCACAF is still directly involved. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Delete Obviously fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and I don't think that twiddly student newspapers and a couple of local blogs read by a collective audience of 17 are enough to carry through WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I initially thought of WP:TOOSOON, but there is enough here for GNG. This discussion seems to be following the usual pattern whereby sources are demanded, then when they're provided there is the pretence that they're not good enough sources! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a "pretense". All possible sources are not created equal — some kinds of potential sources (student media, the subject's own self-published social media presence, community weekly newspapers, purely local media coverage of a person whose notability claim doesn't actually exceed the purely local, iTunes/Amazon, etc.) do not count as satisfying GNG, and people frequently try to bolster notability by leaning on the existence of that kind of "sourceability". So it's not a "pretense" to point out why a potential new source doesn't pass muster: it's an objective analysis of that source. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objective to you perhaps; not to other editors. It is somewhat common for some editors to set the requirements higher for articles about women and women-related topics than a guideline advises. Whether this is done in an attempt to keep articles about women excluded from Wikipedia is obviously debatable. Hmlarson (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I most certainly do not have different, artificially inflated notability standards for women than I do for men; a man at the same level of achievement wouldn't get an article on the basis of this kind of sourcing either. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG as per sources quoted above. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sources quoted above meet GNG? It's certainly not the student newspaper, because student newspapers don't count toward notability. It's not the primary source, because primary sources don't count toward notability. And all that's left is a single local news report on the local television station covering the area where the university she attends is located, which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - sources are either routine/minor mentions, very local, or Primary. Eldumpo (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.