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.
This footballer/soccer player has never played in a professional league, and only 24 matches in an amateur league. It was deprodded because there exists an interview with Fimmano, then a school student aged 17, but the interview unfortunately is not independent coverage, being a Q&A.
Geschichte (
talk)
19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
Delete - it was more a hopeful dePROD than anything else. After a lot of searching, I found these
[1][2] but neither of those are independent or hugely significant. Given that she has presumably retired, I can't see any other sources popping up. If anyone does find something, please ping me.
Spiderone20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. According to its article, the W-league is the top league available to women in Australia. Either we need to keep its players per
WP:NSPORT, or we need to scrap NSPORT as imposing a sexist double standard and consistently apply full-GNG-based standards to all athletes (not just the women). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This article doesn't pass
WP:NFOOTY on either point 1 or 2. If we are using NFOOTY alone, then it will end up being deleted. What's more relevant is
WP:GNG. If we can find evidence of GNG, and I don't think we're a million miles off that, then this can and should be kept.
Spiderone09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination by
Geschichte is false. The W-League is not an amateur league, it is a professional league (sources:
[3],
[4]). What it isn't is a "fully-professional" league, which is a term used mostly on Wikipedia based on the
WP:FPL essay, and hardly seen mention of elsewhere, definitely not in wide consensus or use, as would be expected of a term used to assume notability. --
SuperJew (
talk)
16:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Based on the sources provided, I don't think this meets
WP:GNG. The sources provided do not constitute
significant coverage, as they are just Q&As with the player themselves, without going too in-depth. I did a search to find other sources and did not find any that constituted in-depth coverage. Whether or not the player played at a professional level,
"fully-professional" or otherwise, they still need to pass GNG, and that has not been demonstrated here.
Jay eyem (
talk)
17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - the nomination statement by
User:Geschichte is false, as this is most definitely a professional, and not an amateur league. Two years ago the minimum salary was increased as per
this. This means that none of the players are amateur. It doesn't mean it's fully-professional - but the claim it's amateur is 100% false. And if this is wrong, what else is wrong?
Nfitz (
talk)
22:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The league has been professional for years. The date of the pay rise doesn't change the claim that they were amateur then as being 100% false. Please correct your error and stop making false claims.
Nfitz (
talk)
17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
It's probably worth correcting it to say something like "semi-professional", or at least noting that the league is not considered fully-professional since that's the benchmark typically used for presumed notability of footballers. Based on the link provided, I don't think "amateur" is an accurate descriptor when one is guaranteed a minimum of $10,000.
Jay eyem (
talk)
18:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be some sources added to the article but the keep votes in this discussion barely talk about them. Editors are reminded to keep there comments on the notability of this individual and avoid wider comments around notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
20:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources provided confirm notability. Yes, the sources are somewhat weak but it's enough to suffice
WP:GNG and since
WP:NFOOTY says "presumed notable" it should be kept. Even then
WP:IAR is a thing and and should be used more frequently when improving the encyclopedia. If anyone here thinks that adding articles on women footballers isn't improving Wikipedia then you have more issues than simply adhering to policy. That is not pointing fingers because I don't know anyone here personally and you don't know me. That's just an observation based on the eyeball test. :)--
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
20:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I am slightly concerned with the sources added for a couple of reasons. The main one being that the sources presented,
The Advertiser and the
Standard Messenger, are both tabloids, which
typically are not considered to be reliable sources (especially since both are owned by
Rupert Murdoch's
News Corp, whose New York Post is notoriously unreliable). Is there an electronic version of these articles that is accessible? I did not find any, and that would better help determine whether GNG has been met, especially since the arguments they are supporting (being coached by David Beckham, receiving a scholarship, and being part of an advertising campaign) don't really demonstrate GNG. Not that an electronic source is necessary, but it would be helpful for these particular sources.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - News Corp sources are generally accepted as reliable by Wikipedia. The Advertiser is not on the list but the Australian has been raised and accepted.
Deus et lex (
talk)
22:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I find that a bit surprising given the Post's reputation and The Advertiser also being a tabloid. Is there a discussion about its notability somewhere? I do see that The Australian, being under News Corp, is accepted, although that appears to be a proper newspaper.
Jay eyem (
talk)
01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Unless the source is blacklisted then it can be used. I'm not sure if you are aware that "tabloid" has a slightly different meaning in Australia to some other countries.
Deus et lex (
talk)
02:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I will admit to not knowing the regional differences when referring to the use of the word "tabloid", but the argument that a source is fine as long as it isn't blacklisted is false. There is a whole manner of arguments about what constitutes an acceptable source at
WP:RS and
WP:V. Evaluating that isn't my area of expertise, which is why I was hoping to see a discussion about this particular source, or to at least have a digital copy presented. The burden of proof is on those arguing that the source is reliable, and it is difficult to evaluate GNG with the flimsy evidence currently presented.
Jay eyem (
talk)
05:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm well aware of the
WP:RS policy and what it means - your argument was that the Advertiser is a source in general that is unreliable (to which I assume you mean along the lines of something like the Daily Mail). My response to that is that there is nothing to suggest that: it's the main newspaper for Adelaide, the state capital, and there has generally not been issues raised with its reliability - issues raised about News Corp generally relate to political bias or opinion pieces, not the reliability of news articles. By all means deal with the individual articles and whether they have significant coverage, but don't go down some road to suggest that every article in the newspaper is unreliable because that simply isn't true.
Deus et lex (
talk)
11:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. This player retired from the
W-League (Australia) in 2012. As of 2013, an article in the
Sydney Morning Herald quoted
Melissa Barbieri, another player in the league as saying, "You'd find that every club has it's own way of running, there's a salary cap but there's no floor. You'll find that a player earns $10,000 in a team and another earns nothing."
[5] So, as of 2013, it sounds like the W-League was not a fully professional league, even if it is one now. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
No Wikipedia policy or guideline uses "fully-professional" as its criterion for deciding the notability of a football athlete.
WP:FOOTY states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". That does not preclude players not in "fully professional" leagues from being notable. It's determining factor is an essay,
WP:FPL. Both the guideline and essay are extremely biased, historically and even currently, against the overwhelming majority of women footballers. I have asked how many women were involved in the writing of this essay on multiple occasions because I do believe that matters as only a small percentage of women's leagues and players are considered professional enough for inclusion in the eyes of the creators of this essay, as it currently stands. Nothing but silence from them but maybe they will respond one day. The essay also states it is "incomplete". That disqualifies it or anything it says as its factors for inclusion as a means to determine notability. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
13:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
delete after reading through the discussion Etc. Etc. it sounds like she was not pro at the time she played. Although, now the league she played for is pro. I don't think the notability guidelines athletes works retroactively though if they didn't play pro, they didn't play pro. Period. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
04:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The league was discontinued in 2004 and brought back in 2008 as a professional league. She played from 2008 to 2012. The question is whether the women's leagues are or are not considered professional if they are not paid like the men's leagues. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
From the discussion Etc. It sounded like the pay raise happened during or after she was playing though. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be a part of the discussion. Really, I don't see why it would be anyway. I'll look back over things and change my vote if it's error though and the pay raise thing gets clearly worked out. It doesn't seem like it has. But I could have read something wrong.
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
My comment was not to alter your views but simply counter them with further thought. Whether she was specifically paid or not shouldn't matter, you are correct, but that is precisely the argument of those at FPL who use NFOOTY as their basis for inclusion. Going on the sources for the Wikipedia article for the league, it was brought back in 2008 because of the need for a professional women's league in Australia. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
20:14, 4 November 2020 (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.
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.
This footballer/soccer player has never played in a professional league, and only 24 matches in an amateur league. It was deprodded because there exists an interview with Fimmano, then a school student aged 17, but the interview unfortunately is not independent coverage, being a Q&A.
Geschichte (
talk)
19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
Delete - it was more a hopeful dePROD than anything else. After a lot of searching, I found these
[1][2] but neither of those are independent or hugely significant. Given that she has presumably retired, I can't see any other sources popping up. If anyone does find something, please ping me.
Spiderone20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. According to its article, the W-league is the top league available to women in Australia. Either we need to keep its players per
WP:NSPORT, or we need to scrap NSPORT as imposing a sexist double standard and consistently apply full-GNG-based standards to all athletes (not just the women). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This article doesn't pass
WP:NFOOTY on either point 1 or 2. If we are using NFOOTY alone, then it will end up being deleted. What's more relevant is
WP:GNG. If we can find evidence of GNG, and I don't think we're a million miles off that, then this can and should be kept.
Spiderone09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination by
Geschichte is false. The W-League is not an amateur league, it is a professional league (sources:
[3],
[4]). What it isn't is a "fully-professional" league, which is a term used mostly on Wikipedia based on the
WP:FPL essay, and hardly seen mention of elsewhere, definitely not in wide consensus or use, as would be expected of a term used to assume notability. --
SuperJew (
talk)
16:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Based on the sources provided, I don't think this meets
WP:GNG. The sources provided do not constitute
significant coverage, as they are just Q&As with the player themselves, without going too in-depth. I did a search to find other sources and did not find any that constituted in-depth coverage. Whether or not the player played at a professional level,
"fully-professional" or otherwise, they still need to pass GNG, and that has not been demonstrated here.
Jay eyem (
talk)
17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - the nomination statement by
User:Geschichte is false, as this is most definitely a professional, and not an amateur league. Two years ago the minimum salary was increased as per
this. This means that none of the players are amateur. It doesn't mean it's fully-professional - but the claim it's amateur is 100% false. And if this is wrong, what else is wrong?
Nfitz (
talk)
22:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The league has been professional for years. The date of the pay rise doesn't change the claim that they were amateur then as being 100% false. Please correct your error and stop making false claims.
Nfitz (
talk)
17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
It's probably worth correcting it to say something like "semi-professional", or at least noting that the league is not considered fully-professional since that's the benchmark typically used for presumed notability of footballers. Based on the link provided, I don't think "amateur" is an accurate descriptor when one is guaranteed a minimum of $10,000.
Jay eyem (
talk)
18:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be some sources added to the article but the keep votes in this discussion barely talk about them. Editors are reminded to keep there comments on the notability of this individual and avoid wider comments around notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk)
20:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources provided confirm notability. Yes, the sources are somewhat weak but it's enough to suffice
WP:GNG and since
WP:NFOOTY says "presumed notable" it should be kept. Even then
WP:IAR is a thing and and should be used more frequently when improving the encyclopedia. If anyone here thinks that adding articles on women footballers isn't improving Wikipedia then you have more issues than simply adhering to policy. That is not pointing fingers because I don't know anyone here personally and you don't know me. That's just an observation based on the eyeball test. :)--
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
20:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I am slightly concerned with the sources added for a couple of reasons. The main one being that the sources presented,
The Advertiser and the
Standard Messenger, are both tabloids, which
typically are not considered to be reliable sources (especially since both are owned by
Rupert Murdoch's
News Corp, whose New York Post is notoriously unreliable). Is there an electronic version of these articles that is accessible? I did not find any, and that would better help determine whether GNG has been met, especially since the arguments they are supporting (being coached by David Beckham, receiving a scholarship, and being part of an advertising campaign) don't really demonstrate GNG. Not that an electronic source is necessary, but it would be helpful for these particular sources.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - News Corp sources are generally accepted as reliable by Wikipedia. The Advertiser is not on the list but the Australian has been raised and accepted.
Deus et lex (
talk)
22:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I find that a bit surprising given the Post's reputation and The Advertiser also being a tabloid. Is there a discussion about its notability somewhere? I do see that The Australian, being under News Corp, is accepted, although that appears to be a proper newspaper.
Jay eyem (
talk)
01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Unless the source is blacklisted then it can be used. I'm not sure if you are aware that "tabloid" has a slightly different meaning in Australia to some other countries.
Deus et lex (
talk)
02:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I will admit to not knowing the regional differences when referring to the use of the word "tabloid", but the argument that a source is fine as long as it isn't blacklisted is false. There is a whole manner of arguments about what constitutes an acceptable source at
WP:RS and
WP:V. Evaluating that isn't my area of expertise, which is why I was hoping to see a discussion about this particular source, or to at least have a digital copy presented. The burden of proof is on those arguing that the source is reliable, and it is difficult to evaluate GNG with the flimsy evidence currently presented.
Jay eyem (
talk)
05:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm well aware of the
WP:RS policy and what it means - your argument was that the Advertiser is a source in general that is unreliable (to which I assume you mean along the lines of something like the Daily Mail). My response to that is that there is nothing to suggest that: it's the main newspaper for Adelaide, the state capital, and there has generally not been issues raised with its reliability - issues raised about News Corp generally relate to political bias or opinion pieces, not the reliability of news articles. By all means deal with the individual articles and whether they have significant coverage, but don't go down some road to suggest that every article in the newspaper is unreliable because that simply isn't true.
Deus et lex (
talk)
11:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. This player retired from the
W-League (Australia) in 2012. As of 2013, an article in the
Sydney Morning Herald quoted
Melissa Barbieri, another player in the league as saying, "You'd find that every club has it's own way of running, there's a salary cap but there's no floor. You'll find that a player earns $10,000 in a team and another earns nothing."
[5] So, as of 2013, it sounds like the W-League was not a fully professional league, even if it is one now. --
Metropolitan90(talk)02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
No Wikipedia policy or guideline uses "fully-professional" as its criterion for deciding the notability of a football athlete.
WP:FOOTY states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". That does not preclude players not in "fully professional" leagues from being notable. It's determining factor is an essay,
WP:FPL. Both the guideline and essay are extremely biased, historically and even currently, against the overwhelming majority of women footballers. I have asked how many women were involved in the writing of this essay on multiple occasions because I do believe that matters as only a small percentage of women's leagues and players are considered professional enough for inclusion in the eyes of the creators of this essay, as it currently stands. Nothing but silence from them but maybe they will respond one day. The essay also states it is "incomplete". That disqualifies it or anything it says as its factors for inclusion as a means to determine notability. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
13:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
delete after reading through the discussion Etc. Etc. it sounds like she was not pro at the time she played. Although, now the league she played for is pro. I don't think the notability guidelines athletes works retroactively though if they didn't play pro, they didn't play pro. Period. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
04:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The league was discontinued in 2004 and brought back in 2008 as a professional league. She played from 2008 to 2012. The question is whether the women's leagues are or are not considered professional if they are not paid like the men's leagues. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
From the discussion Etc. It sounded like the pay raise happened during or after she was playing though. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be a part of the discussion. Really, I don't see why it would be anyway. I'll look back over things and change my vote if it's error though and the pay raise thing gets clearly worked out. It doesn't seem like it has. But I could have read something wrong.
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
My comment was not to alter your views but simply counter them with further thought. Whether she was specifically paid or not shouldn't matter, you are correct, but that is precisely the argument of those at FPL who use NFOOTY as their basis for inclusion. Going on the sources for the Wikipedia article for the league, it was brought back in 2008 because of the need for a professional women's league in Australia. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
20:14, 4 November 2020 (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.