Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by George Ho (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 25 March 2023 (chg template to "Delrevxfd"). 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. There is clearly no consensus here in this divided discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, half the editors say that WP:NFOOTY has been met while the other half say that WP:GNG is not met. Although there is a recent RFC challenging sports notability criteria, I'm not willing today to disregard arguments based on a long-standing notability guideline even if it is in the process of being reframed and rewritten. So, I came down as No Consensus, rather than leaning toward Keep (prioritizing WP:NFOOTY) or Delete (prioritizing WP:GNG). Of course this decision doesn't prevent future AFDs for this article which might result in a more decisive outcome. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Bukuru

[edit]

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

Rachelle Bukuru (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)

This topic fails WP:GNG. On its face this topic satisfies WP:NFOOT, but as WP:NSPORTS notes this is not a substitute for the GNG. My WP:BEFORE is only turning up sports database entries (so far the article is sourced to one such database entry) and a few sporadic mentions such as this, with no significant coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Joseph2302: @GiantSnowman: I was hoping this would not be taken in bad faith. Half of what I write about is about African topics.... like look at my user page, I've written most of the GAs and the only FA under the Burundi topic area. While doing my BEFORE checking I looked at one of the other new female Burundian footballer articles, Asha Djafari, for reference, and she has much more mentions in sports coverage (much of it routine, granted) that could be used to improve that article. Not so with Bukuru. I don't see how creating bunches of permastubs fixes any systemic issues. It just drags down the average quality of articles on African women even further with, as my BEFORE for this article suggests, no room for improvement. Burundi has a small media footprint but most of their publications cover sports (Iwacu, Le Renouveau, Jimbere Magazine, for example), especially soccer. I've searched all three (Jimbere is expressly focused on women's issues and likes to follow what the women's national football team are up to) and found nothing. Maybe we should consider that the Burundian media didn't consider this person that important. In the intro to BIAS it reads Wikipedia tends to show a White American or White European perspective on issues due to the prominence of English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. So how is it BIASed to delete this subject if the black African-run sources from Burundi don't consider this important? Too many European male players is not what's being debated here and is a separate issue. I hope the closer will note too that BIAS is not a policy-based reason for deletion. To the "Ongoing career" argument all I have to say is that is not a policy-based reason either and WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Senior International Player, regardless of gender. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ArsenalGhanaPartey: What criterion is this satisfying? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NFOOTY: Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following: 1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA Which they have done. And we shouldn't be randomly picking off international footballers from less well represented countries- I've never seen an international male, European footballer nominated successfully for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To quote the explanatory notes at the top of WP:NSPORTS, of which WP:NFOOTY is a part: 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. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. The reasoning "Keep because international footballer" stands in direct opposition to this guidance. Complaints about international male European footballers is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If they bother you, go AfD them. I noticed this article because I work with Burundi topics. As I said above, this was not "random", this was because this player (unlike some other Burundian footballers) seems to have almost zero SIGCOV footprint in RS. Also it is factually incorrect that "not much of [Burundi's] newspaper coverage is online". Most of it actually is, because a lot of their market is Burundian expats in other countries (particularly for Iwacu, the only private newspaper). But I'm humoured to be accused of BIAS. Because the Western editors (according to userpages) voting keep here and so worried about BIAS seem to think that they know better about what Burundi should value than the Burundian media market! How progressive! My sarcasm aside, I will happily withdraw this AfD if sources are provided to demonstrate this person's notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As an international player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Caphadouk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT requires GNG to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Burundi women's national football team#Current squad in the light of the currency of her career, and WP:BIAS issues. Sourcing is extremely weak, with two DB-grades, and one that doesn't even mention her at all, does nothing to establish actual, as opposed to baseline-presumed, notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Senior International Player and hence meets notability Zanoni (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean per the notability guideline which states, inter alia: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Indy beetle's explanation of the lack of Burundian coverage and the hubris of assuming women's football is given the same degree of attention and importance there as it is in (some) Western nations. !Voting just "keep, meets NFOOTY" is only defensible if the deletion rationale does not address that point; since it does, and instead raises the lack of GNG, per NSPORT those wanting to keep should provide evidence for the implicit claim there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect to a suitable list article (e.g. List of Burundi women's international footballers if such a list existed – Burundi women's national football team is not a suitable target because she will almost certainly not always be mentioned there). This stub is a prime example of WP:WHYN, and it fails comprehensively. In cases such as these, barely meeting the SNG is not enough; successive RFCs have also reaffirmed community consensus that GNG must be met in the case of NSPORT. Essentially, the presumption of notability offered by NFOOTBALL is no longer valid without significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources. Ultimately, we need significant coverage in order to write an article; none has been found here, and that is most likely because none exists. As for BIAS, artificially boosting article count is not the solution – creating quality content is; having countless junk database-entry-type biographies containing nothing but statistics is not the way to counter systemic bias, and if anything it makes the situation worse. Bare statistical information (which is all we have) is better presented in lists. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the 'current squad' does indeed work as a possible target, for the very rationale offered above: she's a currently active international player, whose notability and coverage may consequently increase, rather than being limited to that stemming for her current appearances. If that doesn't happen, the 'disappearing target' is less of an issue. But it's not a hill I'm planning on dying on, and I'd be perfectly happy with the above list article too. I also agree that this is outside the strict focus of WP:BIAS -- which is a) an essay, and b) written in terms of counteracting Wikipedia's own internal biases, not the biases of the internet, sources, and indeed of the world generally. If only we could fix those with some web edits. If we intend to have some sort of CSB presumption-slack on those wider lines, we need to set that out in terms in a guideline somewhere, not by setting peephole precedents. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as she is not selected, the current squad is no longer a suitable target, and a target with an expiration date is not a valid one when there are good alternatives (even if they don't currently exist). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evidently fails GNG. It's important to note the actual wording of NFOOTY: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". Avilich (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you needed to ask that question if nobody even bothered to say an explicit yes, and several others explicitly said no. Avilich (talk) 14:31, 4 March 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/Rachelle_Bukuru&oldid=1146465210"