Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chilvers

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. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chilvers

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

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

PROD concern was I could not find one single piece of significant coverage for her; just database listings like this. Nothing came up when searching TWG.

PROD removed with the reason According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

This does not address the concern that this subject appears to fail WP:GNG. If anyone does find in-depth sources on Chilvers, please ping me. Spiderone 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failing GNG, the obvious alternative is if the subject passes the usual football notability guideline WP:NFOOTY (which is frequently debated). However, the subject has not played at the international level nor in a fully professional league (see the list WP:NOTFPL maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. WP:NOTFPL is not at all maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force. You guys? crack me up. Hmlarson (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot! The horror! ref Hmlarson (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood the "See also" tag there. So that list is only maintained by the broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Football then? Is the Women's football task force uninvolved with the Women's leagues subsections of that list? — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you new here? Hmlarson (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely asking these questions. I don't frequently edit articles or participate in XfDs in women's football nor have I been involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as presumed notability for footballers go, WP:FPL is usually the standard for footballers. It also ends up creating a lot of players which arguably don't pass GNG. Ultimately for an article to be kept it needs to pass GNG, so it isn't as if a LOT of male footballers could also be deleted for failing GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like with other SNGs, doesn't NFOOTY serve as an alternative route to notability? If a subject passes a specific guideline, then it doesn't need to also pass GNG. Per WP:NSPORT: the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding as well, yes. And the subject of the article would also fail WP:NFOOTY. I'm not sure where this exemption for women footballers comes from, but the overall project does use WP:FPL as a guideline to determine presumed notability. And ultimately if the player doesn't pass GNG either, then there's reason for deletion. I did a quick search and didn't find any significant coverage for this footballer. I think there are WP:SYSTEMIC concerns for women footballers as opposed to men footballers, but I don't know that AfD is the place to discuss that. Jay eyem (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this discussion before yet we keep coming back to it. I asked in one AfD for those who maintain FPL to tell me how many women contributed to the writing of that essay. No response yet but I am holding out hope we will get an answer. I think they know it will prove that it echos the systemic bias we see in the general sport itself. Never-the-less, FPL itself says it is incomplete and therefore its reliability is in question. I would use it if I wanted to confirm that I my article wouldnt show up at an AfD two minutes after moving it to mainspace with the argument it isn't "fully professional", but little else. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the opportunity to contribute to the discussion at WT:FPL. I think it's a fairly reasonable basis for presumed notability (a bit too loose of a criterion if I'm being honest). There was some ambiguity regarding how FPL applies for team seasons; there really isn't for individual players. That of course can always be brought up at WT:NSPORT, as well. If there is another notability criterion for women footballers, it hasn't been provided yet and I'm not sure where to look for it. Jay eyem (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't another criterion. They are both judged using the same criterion however the circumstances are not equal to which it is applied. That is the issue and until that is resolved we can't begin to seriously address the inequality on Wikipedia and society will continue to suffer because of the perpetuation of the same old sexist viewpoints. By the "letter of the law" she doesn't pass but at some point, when the "letter of the law", which Wikipedia itself says is not rigid as one of it five pillars, hurts rather than improves Wikipedia then I believe we should "ignore the rules". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has allowed way too much absurdly undersourced and developed junk in under the existant rules. What we need to do is tighten them, not loosen them to create even more unsustainable, unsustained articles on people who have no actual coverage in sources. We need to start using SNGs to hold articles to something tighter than the GNG, and to stop accepting articles that in no way, shape or form come even close to passing the GNG. Wikipedia arlready has too many junk articles, we do not need polices that will create more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Johnpacklambert on this. If you look at a sample of articles from 2015, sports takes up way too much of the encyclopedia, especially for BLPs. The solution is not to ignore all rules if it means accepting every sportsperson that has ever played a professional game of soccer. And that's even including WP:NFOOTY, which I personally think is too loose. That being said, just evaluating this individual player, I don't see significant coverage, and was unable to find any in-depth coverage. It seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Jay eyem (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read you both loud and clear. Your opinion is to shrink Wikipedia by removing what YOU call "junk" articles. That is a very exclusionary thought process and will drive people to other sources to get their information and will eventually kill Wikipedia because it's not very forward thinking but if you want another online Britannica then that's your prerogative. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a shred of notability as not a top-level competitor in the sport as a whole. Geschichte (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may agree with the shred of notability but its a good thing no policy anywhere on Wikipedia says "as a whole" because that would knock out better than 98% of the men too. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I already gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano. Her league is the top league in her country. Insisting that only a "fully professional" league should count, whatever that is supposed to mean, imposes a biased double standard in which nothing a women does is considered good enough, while men are still considered notable by playing only one professional game. That standard is bigoted and wrong. We should either keep this article as someone who reached the highest available pinnacle of her sport, or get rid of NSPORT and consider all athletes properly under GNG on an individual basis, not starting by nominating only womens-league athletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how WP:NFOOTY is worded, wouldn't the same principle be applied to men who have only played in the men's leagues listed at WP:NOTFPL (which are also the top levels in their respective countries)? They wouldn't be notable either under the notability guideline. It seems that the main issue is that only two women's leagues are classified as "fully professional" in the list, rather than only applying WP:NFOOTY to women footballers. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These old, foolish patterns just don't work anymore, fellow editors. I mean, sure, go get those stubbies if that's what you want to do with your one precious life. I'll be adding the 2020-21 W-League games being broadcast on ESPN+ in the US to my calendar. Are they being broadcast in your countries, too? Here's a handy list for you if you missed it: W-League Global Broadcasters

Also, who else is looking forward to that 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, home of the W-League, the same league this player and all the other players' articles you're working so diligently on deleting! Amazing.

Do you think the broadcasting records will be broken again in 2023? ref: FIFA Women’s World Cup 2019™ watched by more than 1 billion (FIFA) And to think they had two other men's championship games scheduled on the same day as the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup Final? Hmm.... I know what I ended up watching that day. That reminds me -- I've got to upload some photos. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this have to do with this AfD? If you're trying to link notability of the Women's World Cup to this player because she plays in the W-League, notability isn't inherited. Jay eyem (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - not in any way notable, and please can people stop implying bigotry. The fact of the matter is that Chilvers does not pass GNG or NFOOTY, and is therefore quite clearly not notable. Also, who else is looking forward to that 2021 Africa Cup of Nations in Cameroon, with that tournament automatically making in-depth secondary coverage appear for anyone who played a few games in the top tier of Cameroonian football 10 years ago. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 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.