Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Dennis (soccer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 15 January 2022 (addendum to my close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. and none likely to emerge with established editors making policy-based cases for both sides of the issue. Star Mississippi 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC) ETA following conversation about my close with JoelleJay, I am explicitly noting that I have no issue with this being renominated if participants or nominator think a different outcome is likely quickly. This appeared to be cleaner than an additional relist. Star Mississippi 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dennis (soccer)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Amanda Dennis (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who played 1 game at the senior level before announcing her retirement. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY, completely fails GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nomination. Nowhere near to satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to be reasonable in our inclusion criteria. With actors and actresses we require "multiple" "signifiacnt" roles in "Notable" productions. There is no reason we should allow just one game to make a sportperson notable. We should use reason in evaluating articles, and any reasonable standard says delete articles in most cases on people who made just one top level game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (Vote struck, view changed) It seems like more and more as of late we have people with 1 appearance being nominated who are ostensibly notable under WP:NFOOTY per 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, which has become an increasingly problematic criterion. It seems to make sense for someone who is still a current footballer, but for retired players, it could be a bit much to have an article for anyone who has ever played in a match between two fully professional teams as that is tens-of-thousands of people. I think that the main argument I have for deletion here is lack of chance for expansion with her retirement with no indication of coming out of retirement. If she does come out of retirement, article could always be retrieved via WP:REFUND, but without any overtures of her coming out of retirement, I have to vote delete. snood1205 15:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD is not the appropriate place to be WP:LAWYERING over a policy like WP:NFOOTY or randomly making up new interpretations like current vs. retired players. Especially concerning female footballers, we've seen hundreds of AfDs where broso editors argued strongly for NFOOTY as the primary reason for deletion; now here's a case where the subject clearly and unequivocally passes NFOOTY, and suddenly the wikilawyering starts. I'm personally all for re-evaluating NFOOTY and many woso editors have been arguing for precisely that to no avail, but I'll say here what woso editors have been told many times: until there is consensus for changing it, NFOOTY should be applied as it is written. Seany91 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am unable to view this article but it looks like it may have SIGCOV. Can anyone confirm? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: ;) Seany91 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to be a fairly in-depth interview of the subject at hand done by a student newspaper. I have to say I am a little concerned that the sourcing on the article will be a bit thin (I agree with John Pack Lambert's concerns), but this piece definitely constitutes WP:SIGCOV imo. Also @Seany91: please sign your comments and don't taunt another editor in the future, that's not civil or productive to discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jay eyem: GS asked editors to ping him if sources are found, so I did. Please withdraw your unfounded accusation of incivility, thanks. Seany91 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not unfounded. It is quite literally the definition of WP:IUC 2a and the linked definition at wiktionary. Unless you think it is normal to respond to people using mocking emoticons for some reason, I see no reason to withdraw that. Also, I'd appreciate an explanation of what "broso" is as well, because there is no WP:BROSO page and the only link besides this page goes to Birgit Brosø and I suspect that is not that to which you were referring. It could come across as a portmanteau of "BRO" and "SOccer" so I just wanted some clarification there. Jay eyem (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jay eyem: An important cornerstone of the policy you quoted is "assume good faith." I've laid out my explanation, and with the caveat that interpreting personal communication style on a written message board is always a crapshoot, I must say the emoticon is not mocking in any way from my POV. If you cannot assume good faith from me and chose to interpret that as mocking or taunting, that's your choice. Your guess regarding the portmanteau is correct, however ;) Seany91 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is precisely that portmanteau which makes it difficult to assume good faith. Instead of assuming good faith on behalf of other editors, you chose to use a personal attack by linking WP:FOOTY editors to a common pejorative. And winking emoticons are well understood to communicate sarcasm, so unless you have some playful relationship with GiantSnowman (which is not readily apparent here, and if that is the case I'll strike my comments), then that easily comes across as taunting, whether or not it is what you intended. Jay eyem (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry, this is just hilarious (and to make it 100% clear I'm not attacking you personally or whatever). Somehow you seem to forget editors involved in WP:FOOTY also include people who are primarily interested in women's soccer. And editing on WP is primarily supposed to be fun. And that woso and broso are common shorthands used in online communities in a fun and not prerogative way – and if you want to take it that way, maybe think about why you're taking it so personally somehow when you have had little involvement in editing woso articles on here in the past, so maybe that characterization is not entirely untrue... And why, having had no active investment in woso articles on here, that you're so involved now in an AfD for a woso article... Given the systematic bias on women-centric articles on WP (well documented, not just restricted to soccer), why some woso editors with a long history of dealing with this might get annoyed from time to time. And that you're a third party somehow jumping in to defend GS, when we seem to be fine all along. (Full disclosure: GS and I have both agreed and disagreed plenty of times in the past, if you want to check.) Seany91 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "broso" is absolutely not common usage on wikipedia. A search for the term in the project namespace returns only this conversation and Birgit Brosø. And you've just acknowledged to using a commonly used pejorative term, ironically, in a discussion about bias. Is there systemic gender bias on Wikipedia? Yes. Has this been discussed extensively in relation to football? Yes. Is that an excuse for incivility towards other editors? No. As for my involvement at AfD, I watch the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, which is why I came across it. And since GS seems fine with your emoticon, I'll strike my comment. But my criticism of "broso" remains: it's an insult, whether or not you intend it that way. Jay eyem (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging @Jay eyem, @Seany91, @Snood1205, @Coolabahapple, @Pharaoh of the Wizards. That article is just an interview in a student newspaper at her institution, making it fail the requirements for GNG on three levels. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would dispute that it is not independent, since it is a student run publication. Granted I don't know the specifics, but I know that the Lantern at tOSU and the Daily at UM are both completely independent of their respective universities, so I just assume this would be similar. As far as reliability is concerned, I don't know where that concern comes from with regards to interviewing a college athlete but that's not my area of expertise. I'll say that I don't think a single interview by a student-run paper that presumably regularly interviews student athletes really merits inclusion on Wikipedia, but since she also technically passes WP:NFOOTY I'd rather wait to see if more sources can be found than to !vote. Jay eyem (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Student newspapers are not independent of the student body from which they draw editors, nor are they actually independent of the university beyond asserting some degree of editorial independence (even The Lantern has a faculty adviser). They have long been held non-reliable for considerations of notability (see these recent administrator closes here and here); the latter AfD close explicitly says The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes. And meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant once notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree in part. Consensus has long been that student newspapers are not independent for GNG purposes. However, there is no such consensus with respect to local newspapers. To the contrary, multiple efforts to import a WP:AUD element into WP:GNG have been soundly rejected. Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok genuine question, where does this consensus for student newspapers not being independent or reliable come from? I did see the two AfDs posted, but was not entirely swayed by the merits of the arguments made therein. I can understand the concerns about reliability (you wouldn't necessarily expect high quality journalism from students), but these papers are independent, both editorially and (at least for the Daily) financially. So from a policy perspective, where does this argument come from? Where is the discussion that these sources have been deprecated besides a couple of AfDs? Jay eyem (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been monitoring American football AfDs for more than a decade, and it's long been commonly accepted there that content from student newspapers concerning the school's athletes fail WP:IS. The rationale is that students of XYZ College writing about athletes at XYZ College lack the requisite independence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We require independent sources because those that are affiliated with the subject cannot be expected to evaluate or reflect the subject's real-world importance. To that end, we don't consider coverage published on someone by members of their own organization, particularly those acting as representatives of their organization, to be independent. Alumni newsletters, profiles of awardees by the awarding org, profiles of contestants published by sponsors of their contest, coverage of a business by a newspaper that receives ad revenue from the business...none of these should be used for notability. Just because the college doesn't legally dictate the content or directly support the paper doesn't mean it is "independent" in the sense of the term used by Wikipedia. Student newspapers are specifically aimed at, funded by, and focused on the interests of members of their university. The faculty advisers and board are still paid by the university, the student editors are tens of thousands of dollars in debt to invested in the university, the student athlete makes money for the university; ultimately they have a clear financial relationship with their university in a way that, e.g., a local newspaper does not. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the topic at RSN here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay eyem, Cbl62, Seany91, Snood1205, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Spiderone, S.A. Julio, Keskkonnakaitse, Chumpih, GiantSnowman, and Geschichte: JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I expect this will sway anyone who hasn't already responded to my incessant pings, but the consensus at RSN, with six participants, is a unanimous "student media is never acceptable for use in determining notability of fellow students". So that leaves us with the 3-4-sentence summaries of PSU press releases in a hyperlocal paper of her junior training camp attendance and early PSU enrollment, the PSU press release that was directly copied over to We Are Central PA, the Q&A she submitted to TDS when she was 15 and committed to PSU, a press release from her club about her attending a training camp, the 3 sentences on WTAJ/Local DVM describing a PSU tweet on her signing, a six-sentence blurb in The Striker Texas on her signing by a reporter dedicated to reporting all Houston Dash transactions, and a profile in a PSU student blog. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Jay's assessment of lack of independence and would argue that it should meet WP:IS. With regards to it being an interview, there are quotes from her, but there are also paragraphs of text that are interspersed, so it's not as much an interview as an article will some quotes. I think that if we ignore the quotes as a form of WP:SPS then it also passes WP:V. I guess the question as to whether or not it would count for a WP:GNG source is if it is considered WP:RS. There is nothing that would make me inherently doubt it being reliable, but I cannot say for certain as I do not know the editorial standards at the paper. snood1205 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG and NSPORT are very clear that notability can only be achieved with sources that are independent. From NSPORT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Student newspapers, as far as I know, have never been considered independent of their institutions/the student body with respect to notability (this recent close explicitly documents the consensus: The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes.) JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I never pinged @Spiderone. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the hundreds of AfDs on male footballers who played 1 game. So little gameplay fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL, and lack of coverage stems from that, so the subject doesn't meet any other guideline either. The collegian.psu.edu source would probably not be regarded as independent, and being interviewed by news outlets one or two times don't cut the guideline. Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I could only find one really good source on Dennis (above), which consequently means that I can't prove that she meets WP:GNG, I do believe that meeting WP:NFOOTBALL should be enough. As others have stated, there are very few WP:FPL women's leagues so I actually believe that those that have played in such a league are a relatively exclusive club. In much the same vein, I always support the keeping of footballers that have received a full international cap, even in the cases where it can't be proved for definite that they meet GNG, the fact that they have played the sport at such a high level makes them notable based on their achievements in the sport. I admit that this isn't my most scientific vote, especially given my stance on players that have played 1 or 2 games in men's football and then disappeared but it's just my thought on the matter. I don't expect any of this to gain traction but it's worth discussing in a civil manner anyway. Speaking of which, some of the comments above really lack civility, which is a shame. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see the argument from the article above. It definitely is WP:SIGCOV and to be honestly it's a lot more than many of the WP:NFOOTY one appearance noms are. It's not necessarily WP:GNG, but I do respect the argument for keep. It's honestly a difficult situation one way or the other, but I think that the combination of arguments since I've been involved with the AfD. I'm going to strike my !vote. I want to keep, but also I feel that I need to hold a similar standard that I have been holding elsewhere. I think I will vote keep. While it is important to hold to the same standard, there is not the same WP:SIGCOV, even if just from one article, on many of the other AfDs I've !voted delete in. Some amalgam of WP:NFOOTY and WP:IAR is my rationale. snood1205 03:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, does Dennis meet WP:NFOOTY? yes (although some editors above appear to be muddying the waters by suggesting that she only just meets it}, but occasionally some editors who concentrate on a sng seem to disregard WP:SPORTBASIC ie. "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources ...", the discussion above emphasises one solid source but that is not "multiple", until another is found this looks like delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper Spiderone passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are zero independent secondary SIGCOV sources in this discussion. The article in the Daily Collegian solidly fails on multiple criteria: it is a student newspaper, which is almost never an RS for notability of anything; it is a student newspaper at her institution, and therefore not independent; and it is an interview, which is neither independent nor secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – my !vote follows along with Spiderone above. At the end of the day, what we're here on Wikipedia to do is to write an encyclopedia. Dennis meets WP:NFOOTY, one of our guidelines for inclusion on said encyclopedia. We are able to write a sourced, readable biography with the sources that exist online. With all that in mind, I feel that there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except NFOOTY does not supersede GNG, which she decidedly does not meet. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As noted above, articles published in student newspapers at the school attended by the subject do not suffice, as such publications have long been held to lack independence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Spiderone, and I think Dennis does meet WP:GNG. I was able to find some independent, secondary SIGCOV sources (examples here, here, here, here, here, here and here). She represented the United States at youth international level, signed a professional contract, played professionally for two seasons in one of the highest-level women's football leagues in the world, was a substitute for 15 games and played a full match as a professional. Outside of the regular starters, goalkeepers tend to make fewer appearances than outfielders. It is not as though her career as a first team squad member lasted 5 minutes, as we have seen with some footballers with 1 appearance being deleted, she was with a top-level professional team for 2 years. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the new sources either lack the required depth (e.g, this) or are questionable as reliable sources (e.g., (this) but there's enough for me to withdraw my "delete" vote and leave the notability call to those more knowledgeable about soccer. Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three Centre Daily Times sources are a) routine b) shallow signing coverage c) derived directly from press releases from the athletic department and therefore do not contribute to GNG. The We Are Central PA source is identical in format to the university's roster bios and so is obviously not independent. The Patch.com source is literally a news release from the team she was signing to ("—News release submitted by Arsenal FC and Elite Clubs National League") so does not count whatsoever. The Local DVM source is four very brief sentences of signing coverage = not SIGCOV. All of this is utterly routine media attention for college athletes. I stand by my delete !vote and would encourage @Cbl62 to reconsider. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources provided at the end.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • was Keep I'm swayed by S.A. Julio's comments. (And the discourse re. GS above was entertaining) Chumpih t 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC) + changed 2022-01-08 21:32[reply]
    Delete. Given the robust rebuttal from JoelleJay below, including a detailed analysis of sources and opinions garnered from WP:RSN, it seems reasonable to suggest the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. JoelleJay's analysis that the WP:NSPORT is a facilitator and stopgap until completion comes along seems plausible (although I'm not convinced that folks are just in it for the big stats). That said, WP:SNG explicitly defers to other guidelines, and the ones for WP:NFOOTY are agreed, but I don't see an explicit trail of deference to WP:NFOOTY there. Chumpih t 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the attempted ping by @Seany91: above didn't work, as there was no signature. I've only just come back to this discussion by accident and missed all the drama - it would have been nice if somebody else had attempted to notify me about it all. FWIW I don't view the ';)' emoticon as being anything other than good natured. Back on topic - I think enough coverage has now been found for the subject to be notable and therefore I suggest we keep it. GiantSnowman 22:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay eyem: - no apology needed, I appreciate you jumping to my defence! GiantSnowman 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall coverage is significant to confer notability IMHO. GiantSnowman 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the other sources are independent, though. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I absolutely hate the "articles which pass the SNG but fail GNG should be deleted" bullshit. If passing the SNG is meaningless and the only thing that matters is passing GNG, then we should just delete all SNGs, because they serve no purpose except to cause confusion. If, however, SNGs do serve a purpose, then we should stop fucking ignoring them. She passes the SNG, her article gets to stay. GNG can kiss my ass. Mlb96 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The SNG is NSPORT, which explicitly says GNG is required and that the sport-specific guidelines just presume SIGCOV.
    First sentence: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
    Applicable policies and guidelines section: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.
    FAQ 1 (collapsed at top of page):

    Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 2:

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 5:

    Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
    A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

    This allows people to create articles that don't start out with the notability sourcing required for other subjects; but once notability is challenged GNG sourcing (or extremely strong evidence such sourcing exists but is unavailable) must be produced. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a horrendous description, it's totally self-contradictory. It calls itself a "notability standard" but then says that it isn't actually one and should be completely ignored. Why does it exist at all? Just fucking delete it if it serves no purpose. Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my explanation of the nuances of NSPORT from another AfD:

    Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage).

    JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is still self-contradictory. It prevents "the threat of immediate AfD challenge" but if notability is challenged then GNG sourcing must be provided. The first statement cannot possibly be true if the second statement is true, because someone could bring an article to AfD immediately and then the SNG accomplishes nothing. I reiterate that if your interpretation is correct, then NSPORTS should be scrapped entirely. And because I do not think NSPORTS needs to be scrapped, I disagree with your interpretation. Mlb96 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, most other athlete AfD regulars and more importantly closing admins actually do understand the nuances and purpose of NSPORT, as evidenced in the numerous closes explicitly stating as much in both NFOOTY and other sport AfDs. A small sampling of just the recent articles I participated in/watched: Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng, Raphael Noway, Francis English, Rafael Dias (I'll paste the entirety of this one: The result was delete. JoelleJay's interpretation of GNG is spot-on per sitewide consensus, and is sufficiently supported in this discussion.), Tony Frias, Lambert Golightly, Atul Raghav, Prateek Sinha, Salman Saeed (The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.), John Ford, Shahid Ilyas, Mohammad Laeeq, Obaidullah Sarwar (The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.), and Qaiser Iqbal. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, NSPORT is a waste of bytes and serves no purpose except to be confusing? Sorry, but I don't accept that. A paradox doesn't start to make sense just because a bunch of people insist that it does. Mlb96 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Its "intended" purpose is so editors can create articles on people whose GNG-meeting sources might be difficult to find but which we can be 95% sure do exist. The thought is that if an article is already created, it's a) easier for future readers to come across, and b) easier for future, potentially inexperienced, editors who do have access to sources to expand (rather than create a new article). This is "supposed" to increase representation of people who come from under-covered/non-English regions or from time periods where coverage isn't digitized. But the reason I used scare quotes above is because in reality, for about as long as the guideline has existed, the vast majority of articles that demonstrate meeting NSPORT (through links to databases with evidence of pro caps, etc.) but do not start out with GNG sources are produced by (often autopatrolled) editors who never even attempt to look for SIGCOV, even for contemporary athletes for whom coverage could be found in seconds, because they're focused on mass-creation to pad their own creation stats. Many of these microstubs are never expanded because why would someone want to put in the effort of bringing an obscure athlete to start class? And if they do try to add refs but can't find SIGCOV, well, the type of editor who goes around trying to expand obscure athlete microstubs is unlikely to also nominate such things for deletion, and anyway they may also just assume SIGCOV exists but isn't accessible to them. Conversely, the editors who do nominate things for AfD aren't incentivized to verify a microstub athlete actually meets GNG because NSPORT presumes 95% of them do. So what ends up happening is the mass article creators get to pad their stats with the comfort of knowing their low-effort contributions are unlikely to be deleted; the editors actually focused on countering systemic bias can be relatively confident their articles will stick around and perhaps a hypothetical future editor with access to local offline paper coverage will eventually expand them; and the only articles that get brought to AfD are already borderline cases for an SSG criterion or meet a criterion that has been identified as inadequate (this is why there has been a flurry of NFOOTY deletions of players who only played one pro match--at some point recently we discovered this wasn't actually a reliable predictor of GNG in many leagues). I hope this explanation helps. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can !voters please explain how this source assessment is incorrect instead of just asserting she has SIGCOV in multiple IRS?


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Interview/profile in a student newspaper No Per consensus from numerous AfDs, student newspapers are not considered independent of their university with respect to notability of university-affiliated subjects. Yes Probably considered reliable for facts Yes Commentary on the subject by the author (as opposed to quotes from the subject) seems substantial enough ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "Goalie to train with U.S. soccer team" No Refactored PSU press release in local paper Yes No Routine 3-sentence U-18 training camp announcement ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "Dennis added to U.S. U-19 roster" ~ Unclear if this is just refactored from a PSU press release Yes No Routine 3-sentence U-19 training camp announcement ✘ No
Centre Daily Times announcement "PSU announces early enrollees" No Refactored PSU press release Yes No Mentions 2 players that will be attending PSU WS spring practices, then quotes two sentences from the coach ✘ No
We Are Central PA announcement "Nittany Nuggets: Women’s Soccer sees two enroll early" No Consists of the PSU press release from source 4 plus a straight copy of her bio on the PSU WS roster page Yes No Routine bio blurb ✘ No
Top Drawer Soccer blurb "Girls commitments: U15 GNT GK to PSU" No Athletes submit their college commitments to TDS, then TDS interviews them. There are just 3 sentences by the article author. ~ Unclear where TDS stands with regards to its freelance writers for college/youth news No Canned quotes from the subject on how she decided on PSU as a 15yo do not have requisite depth ✘ No
Patch-hosted press release "Murrieta player selected to attend national soccer training camp" No Literally states "—News release submitted by Arsenal FC and Elite Clubs National League" Yes No Consists only of extremely shallow background info (her high school, the U15 club she plays for), quotes by her and about her from her coaches about being excited/proud (no depth), and a description of the training camp ✘ No
Local DVM post "Another Penn State women's soccer player is going pro" ~ Largely just restating a PSU tweet Yes No 5 sentences, of which 3 are on her: "Goalkeeper Amanda Dennis signed with the Houston Dash Monday. She started three seasons in the net for Penn State winning 45 games and pitching 24 shutouts. She joins Kaleigh Riehl in the pro ranks from the 2019 team." ✘ No
The Striker Texas blurb on her signing Yes Yes No 6 sentences of routine transaction coverage by a journalist dedicated specifically to covering Houston Dash transactions, on a website "devoted to covering all levels of the sport across the Lone Star State" (for example, there is a lengthy profile on the coach of the winning Ford Copita Alianza U9 team) ✘ No
Two articles in Onward State No "PSU news by Penn State's student blog" No Blog Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG based on the solid sources/reasoning of S.A. Julio and Spiderone. We can see from a recent relevant AfD for another football goalkeeper that for some editors no sourcing in these cases will ever be good enough and will always be derided as trivial, routine, unreliable, non-independent etc. etc. In reality it's exactly the sort of coverage you would expect to be thrown off by a notable professional athlete. After all, 99% of all journalism is rehashed press releases or interviews! Especially in the "toy department" of the news media. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are well aware that we regularly delete one-appearance pro football players with as much or more coverage (e.g. pulling from recent NFOOTY AfDs: Tony Frias, who had a full-length article in the Boston Globe on top of the exact kind of transactional coverage Dennis has in the CDT and WTAJ pieces; Edvin Dahlqvist with numerous transactional pieces). You yourself have !voted to delete such players! In fact, you've nominated several of them (so I can be sure you actually looked at the sources and discarded them as not SIGCOV). Like goalkeeper Magnus Lenes, who, among many other news pieces, had a whole article in Hamar Arbeiderblad on his training with HamKam. Or Andreas Evjen, where you dismissed full-page article on him and a half-page hybrid interview as "local, routine coverage". Or Tore Kallstad, where you said an article covering his performance specifically and a 1/3 page article interviewing and discussing his and two others' stonewalling on coach negotiations fall short of the sustained, non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Or Joar Hoff, whose sources (including this full front-page interview, this other front-page interview/profile, a third full front-page interview, and a full-page story covering in detail a football training course he led with a whole section of commentary on you specifically his approach) you called lightweight sports-reporting fluff, falling short of WP:GNG but which Spiderone described as Not even close to failing WP:GNG.

    So how can you possibly assert Dennis has "solid coverage" meeting the strict independence requirements of GNG from 1) a profile in her university's student newspaper; 2) a 3-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper on her attending a U-18 training camp; 3) a 4-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper about her and another student attending spring practices; a 4) 3-sentence PSU press release summary hosted in a hyper-local paper about her attending a U-19 training camp; 5) a WTAJ "article" that is literally a direct copy of a PSU press release; 6) 4 "independent" sentences by a TDS freelancer summarizing her self-submitted commitment to PSU; 7) a press release directly from her youth club; 8) a WTAJ "article" with 3 sentences on her derived from a PSU tweet? JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is quite the "gotcha" you seem to think it is, given that consensus went against me in those discussions and the articles were kept? Clearly this article has better sourcing than they did. Anyway, perhaps you should emulate what I did there by having your say and then accepting the result gracefully. Trying to dominate and control the discussion by rebutting every !vote you disagree with (with a verbose 'wall of text') is pretty tiresome. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "clear" Dennis has better sourcing than the AfDs that were kept? Like specifically, which sources are both independent and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have read and agree with the assessment of sources. No interest in footy of either gender - just whether or not an AFD meets guidelines or not. This does not, and so it should go. Open to changing my vote if someone can explain how that source assessment table is incorrect. - Such-change47 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the arguments made and sources listed by Spiderone and S. A. Julio plus the SNG pass make me lean towards a weak keep. (Other sources not mentioned above that I found: Houston Dash goalkeeper Amanda Dennis from The Striker Texas; Penn State Women’s Soccer’s Amanda Dennis Signs With NWSL’s Houston Dash and Amanda Dennis Leading Penn State Soccer’s Veteran Defense from Onward State (PSU student newspaper?); and Another Penn State women’s soccer player is going pro from WTAJ News.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Onward State says it's "PSU news by Penn State's student blog", definitely neither independent nor RS. I already covered the 38-word WTAJ release in my analysis. The Striker piece seems to be the best so far, but at 5ish sentences directly on her it is far from SIGCOV, and I'm generally hesitant to consider articles by sources exclusively dedicated to covering all news related to a specific team as truly representative of real-world notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an editor has asked me above (hi Seany91) the following question (i am responding here as it is above the "relist"): "To clarify, is this a comment or a vote?", i (like other editors) do not "vote" at an afd, but rather recommend a course of action ie. "keep", "delete", "redirect", "merge", and so on, often, as in this afd, i precede this with a "comment". ps. my "delete" notavote still stands. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant as all subjects must pass WP:GNG as is clearly stated in WP:NSPORTS. JoelleJay's assessment of the sources is spot on. Alvaldi (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL, which is the current law of the land. Whether or not that WP:NFOOTBALL is reasonable is a separate discussion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle, that is incorrect and not in line with how athletes have been assessed at AfD for at least a year. Please see this comment I made in this thread quoting the text of NSPORT, and this other comment I made in this thread citing just a few examples of athletes meeting an NSPORT guideline who were deleted and where the closer reiterated NSPORT's relationship with GNG (many, many more are closed without contention). JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the examples in your second link. However they do not provide clear-cut evidence of your claims. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle Which claims? What would you consider more clear-cut? Those are 15 recent athlete AfDs that I happened to participate in/watch where the athlete met NFOOTY or NCRIC or whatever but not GNG and the closers all explicitly reference the longstanding consensus that NSPORT does not supersede GNG. There are plenty of other examples of closers making such statements I didn't include, as well as ones where the outcome was so clear it didn't warrant more than "The result was delete" but where !voters specifically state meeting an NSPORT SSG doesn't matter if GNG is failed. GiantSnowman even has a boilerplate !vote he uses specifically for people who meet NFOOTY through just a couple appearances: there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised it took over 9 hours for this "actually..." to arrive :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, as illustrated by JoelleJay's assessment table. Meeting NFOOTBALL is insufficient; on top of being subordinate to WP:NSPORTS which explicitly requests reliable sources, per WP:SNG, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. Neither adequate sourcing nor significant coverage could be found, hence delete. Pilaz (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Dennis_(soccer)&oldid=1065866522"