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. Player clearly fails the subject-specific guideline, but this is irrelevant since there has been no successful attempt to indicate GNG either in this discussion or in article itself.

I can find nothing of substance on this player that would indicate the player has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the article, one source is provided that discusses the player in three brief sentences along with a number of other players. A second brief source essentially consists of one simple quote from the player and short context. Additionally in this discussion only one other source was presented to support GNG, a source which essentially and briefly reports a single tweet made by the player.

In both the article and following a search myself, I can find nothing more of any substance on this player.

As an aside, I would suggest to keep voters, that the correct way to deal with gender bias on WP is to write more articles about notable women, not to lower the notability barrier for notable women. I would suggest players listed here, an article just three clicks away from this player's article as a good place to start for female players that would pass NFOOTY easily. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman[edit]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman (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)

Abdul-Rahman has not competed significantly at the adult level and thus does not meet our notability criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Completely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. JTtheOG (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NFOOTBALL disadequately covers the top-tier of women's football and "adult" is not noted in any relevant notability guideline. NP:FOOTY's perpetually incomplete list of notable leagues is not reliable as a notability guideline - nor is it agreed upon as a notability guideline in a search of the group's archives. Further, this article does not fail WP:GNG. It could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Disappointing although not unsurprising to see the continued wikilawyering around the exact wording of the guideline from the user above. The word "adult" is not used because "Tier 1 International Match" and "competitive senior international match" are the formal ways of describing adult football as opposed to youth football (e.g. U17 or U20)... Number 57 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to constitute an unnecessary personal attack, violating WP:NPA and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Please remain civil even if you don't agree with your peers. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting behavioural issues should not be pointed out? Perhaps we should close ANI in that case. Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying the use of the words "Disappointing although not unsurprising" consist of unnecessary sarcasm, and appear to be a personal attack. I don't see why those words needed to be here. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't sarcasm – she does this all the time. Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY; youth football doesn't count Spiderone 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's a surprising amount of media coverage for an African female footballer. Noting [1] and other articles referenced in the article are borderline WP:GNG and keeping in mind WP:BIAS we should be fighting Gender bias on Wikipedia and encouraging such articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gender has nothing to do with it – we just deleted an article on male footballer who was an U20 international but hadn't played in a fully pro league. It's a shame we can't seem to have an AfD on a female footballer without this sort of misrepresentation... Number 57 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gender has everything to do with it, with the serious systemic bias that exists in the the sport. It's unfortunate that you turn to wikilawyering rather than following the spirit of WP:BIAS, WP:IGNORE, and WP:COMMON. Given the media coverage that this player has received, despite the bias that exists, the article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have anything to do with it because we are being consistent with the deletion process regardless of gender. It also seems strange that you're accusing me of wikilawyering considering you apparently consider it a personal attack based on the statement above (you also don't seem to understand what wikilawyering is – there's a guide here). Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pointing out wikilawyering was not the personal attack. It was the unnecessary and insulting sarcasm that you layered it in "Disappointing although not unsurprising". These words were not necessary. The whole point is that we shouldn't be consistent with deletion on the basis of gender, given the bias that exists in the primary sources. Given what actually exists in primary sources already, then WP:GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm saying the top U-20 national team player in a country is generally notable when they aren't female. So we shouldn't be stuck up on our own rules to not consider them notable because they are female. We have different notability rules for different sports already. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that simply isn't true. We routinely delete articles on players who are youth international regardless of the country they play for (as an example this Cameroonian U20 international (since recreated after he played in a fully-pro league) or this Irish U21 international – note the comments in both regarding youth caps not conferring notability). Number 57 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • In neither case, do I see the media coverage that I see here. In neither case are we talking about the top player on the team. I don't see the basis for the comparison. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HMLarson and NFitz. Sources satisfy WP:BASIC. Her status as a pre-eminent youth footballer in Ghana should be considered for a holistic approach to deletion, which I feel is needed for articles on people and activities from non-western countries. Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion about a woman's footballer in the US with the same credentials.--TM 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namiba: I'm pretty sure we would – we have consistently deleted articles on footballer with youth caps regardless of their nationality and gender. As an example, this AfD resulted in the deletion of an article on an American player who was an U20 and U23 international. Unfortunately whenever we discuss the potential deletion of a female footballer various accusations of bias (and worse) start getting thrown around when I think we are actually very consistent. Number 57 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - This article fails WP:NFOOTY, but just might make the general notability guidelines due to the coverage the subject has received as an Anfrican 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) 01:07, 17 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.