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. There are three main points to consider when closing this discussion:

1 Does the player pass the subject-specific guideline on the basis of having played in a fully professional league?

No. This is a problem for women's football, but the guideline, arrived at by consensus, is quite clear on this point. Arguments that the player has played in a countries top league are not relevant. Playing in a top league that is not of an agreed fully professional status does not confer notability for any player.

2 Does the player pass the subject-specific guideline on the basis of having played senior international football in either a Tier 1 match or a competitive match organised by a regional confederation?

No. The international appearances made by this player for a team specifically selected as U20 for a tournament organised by a sub-confederation of the AFC.

2 Most importantly of all, does the player pass GNG, namely that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article?

No. A review of the sources in the article clearly shows that none of the sources are significant coverage, as none of them are really about her, they are all about teams she has played for, squads she has been called up for and matches in which she has featured. There is nothing to show that she has given any significant interviews or been the subject of specific coverage herself.

More importantly, a review of the sources in the article shows that the ultimate sources for a lot of the references are: The AFC, The Football Federation of Australia, Sydney FC (or other clubs against which she has competed), or Football NSW; i.e. obvious primary sources.

In both the article and this discussion, I can see reference to only one article of that could be deemed to be both significant coverage and independent of the subject, namely this. One relatively short article is simply insufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Plessas[edit]

Georgia Plessas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

One article from the "local sport" pages where she is one of six mentioned young players (14 years old at the time), and one entry list of a tournament where she played with the Australian U-20 team (not the senior national team!). No evidence of notability here. She gets mentioned in match reports and the like, and may very well become a notable player, but doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY yet. Prod removed by an editor who thinks that the U20 matches do satisfy NFOOTY, as they were against senior national teams, but my reading of the guideline is different. For NFOOTY, one needs to have played in a Tier 1 international match, and such a match is [1] is either between two A teams (the U20 team is not the A team obviously), or between an A teaml and a Scratch team (again, the U20 team is not a scratch team). The matches she played in do match the definition of a Tier 2 match (between an A team and "any other representative team"). Fram (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure yet. Someone who knows about the subject needs to comment on all of these. She might not pass NFOOTY, but is the sufficient depth in her NEXISTs to pass GNG anyway? Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the editor that removed the PROD on the basis that she competed at a Tier 1 international tournament. Looking at the paragraph at the top of page 9 of the FIFA Regulations mentioned by the nominator, my understanding is that the 2016 AFF Women's Championship was a Tier 1 competition. WP:NFOOTY does not specifically mention Tier 1 competitions, but playing in three matches of a Tier 1 competition should be enough to satisfy the intention of the guideline, even if her specific games do not count as Tier 1 matches. I have since expanded the article so that there is a bit more depth. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you indicate which of your many, many sources have any depth to them? She doen't meet NFOOTY as written, so we are back to WP:GNG to see if she is notable or not. I see many non-independent sources, many trivial ones (where she is listed as member of a squad or in a match report). She played a lot of matches with the youth teams, and these get reported upon in the media, but where is the actual significant, indepth, and independent coverage about her? Fram (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting GNG aside, to me it is illogical that every player who participated in that tournament is inherently notable except the Australian team members. It may not meet the strict definition of NFOOTY, but surely this is a case where there should be flexibility. Also there is WP:EXISTS to consider. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that you should never put GNG aside. Nsports is an indication that GNG is likely met, not a guide to grant exceptions to the GNG. And I don't get why you link to Exists, this just seems to indicate that her existence (which isn't in doubt) doesn't mean that she is notable. In what way does Exists, which is only an essay anyway, give an argument to keep this article? Fram (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Including that was an error. I was editing on my phone at the time. The point remains that if NFOOTY does not expressly allow this, it should still be considered as meeting the purpose of NFOOTY, because she competed at a senior international tournament. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY – playing international football at youth level does not confer notability. Can be recreated if she ever wins a cap for the full Australian national team. Number 57 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete the sources don't suggest she passes WP:GNG, and she hasn't played for the proper Australian team or in a fully professional league, so she fails WP:NFOOTY as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NFOOTY and its perpetually incomplete list fails the majority of players in top women's leagues around the world. Check the group's archives for previous discussions on this topic. WP:BASIC met. Player plays in the top league in Australia - which is inline with other sports' notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that simply isn't true – looking at the guidelines for other widely-played team sports, WP:RLN and WP:NRU require playing in a fully-professional league, whilst WP:BASE/N both WP:NHOOPS has a list of only 12 leagues that grant notability to players; WP:NHOCKEY is the only team sport notability guideline to grant notability to players from non fully-professional leagues. Number 57 10:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: I'm sure you would agree though that 3 leagues is less than 12 (a quarter in fact)? Especially when the list excludes the top level leagues from countries ranked in the top 10 (Germany, France, England, Australia and Japan). Also you mentioned WP:NHOCKEY, so obviously there is an exception to the "rule". What's the problem with having Women's Football as part of that exception? --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there are exceptions, but the claim was that this was "inline with other sports' notability guidelines" when it's clearly not in line with the vast majority of them. The problem with having different criteria for male and female footballers in a nutshell is because footballers' notability is linked to the sport's popularity as a spectator sport. Professional status is the strongest indicator we have of spectator interest because people paying to come to watch the players or to watch on TV is what pays their wages. If a league isn't fully-professional, this means there isn't sufficient spectator interest to make them so, which in turns means the players aren't likely to be notable. I can't see how it's justifiable to say a player in the FA WSL 1 is more notable than a player in the National League (neither of which are fully-professional) when attendances in the latter are more than 50% higher those of the former (1,743 in the National League in 2015–16 vs 1,128 in the FA WSL 1 in 2016). Number 57 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference is that the top-level league is the highest level she can play at, while the National League isn't. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • But playing at the top level doesn't make someone notable – as you well know, we delete countless articles on male footballers who have played in the top divisions of various countries because their leagues are not fully professional (like this chap who has played in the Kenyan league). Number 57 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Simply isn't true", huh? In addition to your WP:NHOCKEY example, you can add WP:NCRIC to start. Examples of other sports-related notabilty guidelines that note highest level include WP:NTRACK and WP:NBADMINTON. See also WP:NEQUESTRIAN, WP:NSKATE for additional examples of "eligibility". NFOOTY is outdated + debated repeatedly. When was it last updated? Further, when I look for a guideline that would cover National Pro Fastpitch 1 - there are none, which also speaks to the bias and exclusion problems for articles about women's sport in general. Perhaps a better approach would be a notability guideline for women's sports.Hmlarson (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • We are talking about team sports, which excludes all of those examples you give except cricket. You are correct about WP:NCRIC not specifically ruling out players from semi-professional leagues, but it does restrict non-international players to those who have played in the leagues of the 10 countries with first class status. Number 57 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, you are talking about team sports notability guidelines. My original comment referenced "other sports notability guidelines". What's the last updated date for WP:NFOOTY? Hmlarson (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 6 February 2017. Number 57 22:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Here's an updated link to the "consensus" discussion behind the change for anyone wanting to review it (the link in the edit summary is outdated). Who knew it was so easy for some editors to change a notability guideline based on the "consensus" of a few? If that's the case, it should be pretty easy to update for women footballers as well, right? Hmlarson (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Obviously it depends on whether you can get consensus from other editors to make that change. Number 57 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players, which probably needs to be tightened anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has played in the AFF Women's Championship which is a competition for senior teams. The fact that the Australia chose to send only under-20 players is their choice, and the tournament should still be regarded notability-wise as a senior A tournament. Brings to mind this discussion.

Furthermore she plays in a top level league. It is simply ridiculous to follow WP:NFOOTY with women footballers when only 3 leagues are listed at WP:FPL (which doesn't include the top level leagues from countries ranked in the top 10: Germany, France, England, Australia and Japan). --SuperJew (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @SuperJew: just in case you missed it the criteria states "in a competitive senior international match at confederation level" and the ASEAN Football Federation which organises the AFF Women's Championship is not at confederation level, it is a smaller organisation within the Asian Football Confederation which is probably why Australia send U20s and Japan U23s. Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whether she meets NFOOTY or not is in the end irrelevant: NFOOTY is an indication that players are likely to meet the GNG. If you want to keep this article, provide the evidence that she actually has enough significant, indepth, non-routine coverage about herself to be considered wiki-notable. Fram (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds to me like an irrelevant argument when there are male players who've played just 2 minutes at the end of dead-rubber matches and are considered notable. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When interpretations of rules differ , we ought to consider more general factors, such as the balance of WP. We do not need yet further interpretive broadening of the sports guideline DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Want to talk about balance? How about the fact that any male player who plays 2 minutes at the end of a dead-rubber match in the top level league in most countries is notable, while a female player who plays even 500 matches in the top level league of most countries isn't notable on that basis alone, but has to show satisfaction of a broader notability guideline? --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG with multitude of media coverage, particularly [2]. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an article from the "local sport" pages, see the grey header above the title: "Sport | Local Sport". If every young sporter who gets an article in the "local sport" pages is considered notable (just like every local baker, butcher, ... gets an article in the "local" section when they have some special action or a 5-year jubilee), then we can better just abolish the notability guidelines completely. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local or not, it meets WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" - check. "Reliable" - check. "Source independent of the subject" - check. The word "local", "national", or "regional" don't appear in WP:GNG. If said butcher, baker, or candlestick maker has numerous brief mentions in national coverage as well, I'd agree they are notable. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please tell me more about all the non-local coverage "stars" such as Remy Kalsrap, Kolinio Sivoki, Junior Albert, Serencio Juliaans, Paul Collins, etc. have. It's ridiculous that for male players assumed notability is much easier to obtain. --SuperJew (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Have I spoken in favour of these? Have I said that NSPORTS is strict enough as it is? I'm already discussing the way too leninent curling guidelines there, I have argued against looser standards for other sports, and probably the guidelines for male soccer (I presume these are male soccer players? I haven't checked) need tightening as well. How is any of this an argument about this article though? Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, since in both cases we are talking about the appliance of the NFOOTY guideline. The guideline says that because a player played at least 1 second internationally or for a pro league, we assume notability. Yet this is obviously not true. There is no real reason a top-level league which isn't professional would have less coverage than a professional top-level league. If for example the W-League (Australia) goes pro tomorrow, you think there'll be a change in coverage (other than the temporary peak of articles covering the change to pro)? --SuperJew (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that NFOOTY is too permissive. How does keeping this article help with this? Not at all, of course, all it does is help making NFOOTY even less restrictive than it already is. It is indeed ridiculous that playing 1 minute for the Gibraltar or Andorra national team makes someone automatically notable, but that is a discussion to be had at Talk:Nsports. Fram (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that was a conversation which was actually happening, I'd agree with you, but as it's not and male footballers keep getting this automatic pass, I think female footballers should too. --SuperJew (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to point out, all these players referred to above (Remy Kalsrap, Kolinio Sivoki, Junior Albert, Serencio Juliaans, Paul Collins) have international caps. Any female player with a single international cap for any country would also pass WP:NFOOTY (e.g. Elsa Jacobsen, Larissa Šoronda). The issue is that the player we're discussing here does not have any (full) international caps. I'm not sure what the purpose of highlighting these players was, unless you aren't aware that full international players are deemed notable regardless of gender? Number 57 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Another example to further my point, the Dominican Republic's league according to WP:FPL is technically fully-pro. In reality, out of the bunch of players who play there who do have articles about them, the majority are stubs (with the majority of players in the league not having articles at all), and some of the clubs don't even seem to have full squad lists. Soccerway doesn't even list games for players there. The point here is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the point is that professionalism of a league is the wrong way to determine assumed notability for player in it, and must be re-thought. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Another point: The W-League definitely seems going to the direction of professional (see Guardian's and ABC's articles from today) (yes I know this would be counted in an article as WP:CRYSTALBALL, but for the sake of the discussion it seems legit to me to include), yet as I mentioned earlier, the change won't be the factor to change the coverage of the league. Which again shows that the means the professionalism of a league is a poor way to judge the assumed notability of the players in it. The whole of WP:NFOOTY needs an update. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arguably fails the over-broad SNG already and fails GNG. Discussions like these always tend to have editors stretch the word "significant" beyond all reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a fully professional league or played international football. Hack (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to do enough to pass GNG for me. Should the league become fully professional, she'd pass once she'd played a game. This isn't going to change the level of news coverage available for her. - J man708 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Good constructive work has been carried out on the article with more than adequate sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Per above keep comments, especially SuperJew's. This article fails WP:NFOOTY, but just might make the general notability guidelines due to the substantial coverage the subject has received as an Australian female footballer. However I would not be totally opposed for a delete as well as this article also seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:FOOTY. If you disagree, please provide the best WP:RS that mentions her and/or proof that she meets one of the requirements of the standard. You can refer to a diff from above or whoever above made the best arguments. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I provided [3] above. Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry source is too local. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - meats WP:GNG, via significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but barely because few of these articles [but I do think enough] constitute significant coverage. --MATThematical (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for a few reasons. 1) I believe the coverage demonstrated just gets her over the line in terms of GNG. 2) NFOOTY and its fully-pro rule needs a rethink and has done for some time, sure the current bright line rule is the easiest to adjudicate, but it doesn't always get the best results (point in case with the W-League and some other women's leagues like the women's Bundesliga). 3) Even if you disagree with the first two points, surely an effort should be made to combat Wikipedia's systematic bias, which has a dearth of coverage for women's sports relative to men's. Jenks24 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plessas played one or more games in a professional league (Australian W-League)[4]. Delete. Australian W-League is a "top level league which is not fully professional". - TheMagnificentist 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is mostly local, with most consisting of mentions in routine sports reports. The significant coverage for GNG doesn't seem to exist at this time. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the subject has played in a fully professional league, so it wouldn't pass WP:NFOOTY. And yes, the SNGs for sports need to be tightened in general and I would be happy to support that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (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.