Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Gay

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. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Gay

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that she has signed but not played for a fully pro club, which is explicitly excluded as a source notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the the deletion of Adelaide Gay, several teams have players on rosters who have not yet played in the new league, or have professional experience being fresh out of college. If they are signed players i would imagine that they should be allowed that opportunity to be known regardless of playing time. When current Portland Thorns FC keeper Karina Leblanc is away on National team duties i imagine Gay to be the keeper that is played in a game. KTthePEREZident

I don't know why you're coming on Wikipedia to speculate whether or not Gay will make her debut soon. The fact is we don't know that yet. Right now is what matters. As for the near future, at least two things could happen. One would be that she does make her debut, which would make her notable. The other would be that she suffers a season ending injury in training before having any chance of making her debut. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's listed as #23 on the Portland Thorns roster, so it is completely appropriate to have a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.54.150 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's absolute rubbish. – Michael (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN and SB Nation don't seem to think it's rubbish. See also: [1], [2], [3] Hmlarson (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. What I meant was just being listed as #23 on the roster doesn't count as notable. – Michael (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Possibly being notable in the future is no reason to keep. Giant Snowman 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Articles could use expansion and additional citations. Players are on rosters of highest level division of women's soccer in the United States. Clearly meets guidelines provided by WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated having signed but not played for a fully pro club is explicitly excluded as a sources of notability, and the sources listed on these articles are nothing more than routine sports journalism which do not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all until the nominator as demonstrated they complied with WP:BEFORE. That is a requirement of the deletion process, and there is no evidence the nominator did such a task. Instead, it appears the sole nomination criteria was that it "fails" NSPORT and thus must be deleted, which is simply incorrect. Per NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." As in, failing NSPORT just means you don't get the basically free ride and instead have to meet the GNG. These athletes may or may not, but the deletion policy requires the nominator to check first. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly do not meet NSPORT nor GNG so BEFORE has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, nope, don't see anywhere in the deletion policy anything about if the topic doesn't meet those two "guidelines" that BEFORE has been met. In fact, it is really the opposite, as I see "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and I'm pretty sure notability is the main concern here. As in, unless you actually search for sources, you do not know if the topic meets the GNG. Remember, BEFORE is part of the Deletion Policy, and as such, needs to followed. That's why I personally do not take too many articles to AfD, as I don't have the time to do the required "basic due diligence before nominating". Aboutmovies (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement not deletion.

"C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." --SirEdimon (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom; no significant media coverage and no debut in a fully pro league Recreate when at least one of those requirements are met. – Kosm1 fent 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Players do not meet football/sports notability nor do they appear to meet general notability guidelines. Clear cases of WP:TOOSOON. If an editor believes that these players will become notable and doesn't want to have this work deleted, perhaps that editor could step forward and request that the articles be moved to their user space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adelaide Gay who just nudges GNG based on the sources supplied by Hmlarson (talk). I'd procedural keep the others per Aboutmovies (talk), with no prejudice to relisting each in turn if Sir Sputnik (talk) carries out WP:BEFORE. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of May 4, 2013, the following players have also played in a fully professional league per WP:NFOOTY: Meleana Shim [4] and Mariah Nogueira [5] Hmlarson (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2013 (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.