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. Most of the people arguing to keep simply make assertions that WP:GNG is met, without explaining how. The strongest argument is from User:Fenix down, who gives a detailed analysis of why the suggested sources are insufficient.

There's a side-thread here about how WP:NFOOTY handles women, but that's something that should get hashed out in another forum. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaneta Wyne[edit]

Zaneta Wyne (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)

Isn't notable: doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY as she hasn't played in a fully-pro league and hasn't represented a senior international team. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and sources referenced are WP:ROUTINE.

The C of E removed PROD, saying the forign language sources adequately cover GNG [sic]. However looking through those sources, the three first ones ([1], [2], [3]) are WP:ROUTINE (when the player joined/left a club) and are about a paragraph long. The last one (from Morgunblaðið) might be a relevant source, but as far as I know one source doesn't satisfy WP:GNG --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 14:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per NFOOTY failure. Can be recreated if she makes an international appearance or plays in the WSL when it becomes fully-professional next season(?). Number 57 14:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Could you please expand regarding if the article passes or fails WP:GNG? --SuperJew (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments here, I don't think GNG is usefully applicable to football bios due the blanket coverage the sport gets – if we went solely on GNG then we'd have articles on hundreds if not thousands of semi-pro players in England alone (a case could probably be quite easily made for most National League players given the BBC Sport coverage of the league and local newspapers), so IMO we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and playing internationally or in a fully-pro league is a fair place to draw that line. Of course there will be some players who do fail WP:NFOOTY but are notable in reality, but generally they would need to have some kind of seriously special claim to notability to get an article – i.e. long-standing recognition of their name (Sonny Pike – a player famous as a child who never made it, but still gets national newspaper coverage years after he disappeared from football would be an example). Number 57 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and the fact she plays in a top-flight women's league. NFOOTY fails women athletes in the vast majority of top leagues as it only includes two one active league in the entire world - when in the real world there are more than 70 top leagues. Why aren't those leagues listed anywhere on WP:FPL? One would need to look at the edit history of the essay as well as who makes the additions and deletions. As for the WP:GNG guideline which takes precedence over sport-specific notability essays, I'm seeing more than routine coverage. Hmlarson (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Could you please expand in how you see the sources as more than routine coverage? --SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Sure, would you be willing to acknowledge that WP:FOOTY fails the majority of women's players in your rationale up top (as you have in the past)? Why not just say GNG if that's your rationale - because clearly WP:FOOTY is irrelevant here. The Washington Post considers her notable enough to include in their weekly reports about American soccer players playing abroad. ref Yes, that's routine coverage of the The Washington Post considering the FA WSL notable. The BBC, too. The Wikipedia Football Project notability essay? "Eww girls" is my interpretation.

Examples of non-routine coverage currently included in the article for this specific player are: the Kieran Thievam piece, She Kicks Magazine, and the mbl.is article. Looks like she also has French nationality. I'll add that to the article or did you want to? Hmlarson (talk)

I mentioned both WP:NFOOTY and GNG as they are both applicable here per our current notability guidelines. I agree with you that WP:NFOOTY doesn't service women soccer correctly, but that is a different discussion. That's an interesting point about the Washington Post's routine coverage, but it should be brought up in a discussion about FAWSL notability and inclusion in WP:NFOOTY.

As I mentioned above I also included the mbl.is in non-routine. Regarding the other two, they seem to me routine new player coverages at the beginning of the season when there's not much else to write about. Maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:ROUTINE and anyways would like to hear more opinions here. --SuperJew (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is part of the Notability criteria for Events guideline. This is a biography. WP:GNG doesn't mention it. Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient sources here to cover GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are sufficient sources, combined with a distinguished soccer career. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established by the included sources. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Could you please expand on why you think it fails WP:GNG? --SuperJew (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, be careful of WP:VOTESTACK/WP:CANVASS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: This is not at all either of those. Just creating a more thorough discussion with actual arguments. As you can see above I also asked Hmlarson to expand on the keep viewpoint, so hardly swaying the discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hmlarson Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep votes above seem to be confusing the number of references in an article with an indication of GNG. If we look at these sources individually:

1. ksi.is - the Icelandic football federation, a clear primary source and nothing more than a stat summary anyway
2. UEFA - again a clear primary source an nothing more than a stat summary
3. Sunderland Echo - Routine transfer talk from local media dealing with a number of signings, not significant coverage
4. OCRegister - one mention by name, no discussion. Absolutely not significant coverage of the player in any way shape or form
5. MaxPreps - nothing more than a stat summary
6. Equalizer Soccer - brief pen pic in a wider article outlining players to watch out for. Minimal coverage and useable encyclopedic content
7. Palloliitto - essentially no coverage, 25 word article. Cannot conceivably indicate GNG
8. Visir.is - very brief match summary. Does not discuss the player in detail. Not suitable for GNG.
9. Thorsport.is - Routine transfer coverage, very short article, essentially confirmation of signing and one brief quote from her manager. Little to support GNG.
10. shekicks.net - actual interview with the player. Suitable source for GNG but needs more
11. Times Free Press - Routine match reporting. Mentions she scored a goal. No other coverage. Clearly not significant coverage.
12. Guardian - article about a completely different subject, very brief mention at end of her signing for Sunderland
13. Kaffid.is - very brief routine mention of her move away from Iceland. Almost no encyclopedic content
14. MBL.is - essentially a duplication of the previous source. Slightly longer but only because it includes a brief discussion on her new team's season. No additional encyclopedic content
15. MBL.is - brief interview with the player on her departure from Iceland.
16. Soccerway - stat site

TL;DR - This is a nice looking article full of references. Unfortunately bar two brief interviews with the player, all the references are very brief mentions of the player either in routine transfer talk and match reporting, or worse simply stat sites. There is simply no indication that this player has generated significant coverage, namely, per WP:SIGCOV: coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content [and] is more than a trivial mention. It is a simple statement of fact that individuals claiming they see more than routine coverage are fundamentally mistaken. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I located this which would satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:FPL indicates the Women's league she belongs to will become fully professional in 2018 which would satisfy WP:NFOOTY. I don't see the point of deleting the article and waiting a very short period of time until it could be created again. Operator873^CONNECT 07:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly how on earth does that link indicate GNG, there's almost no content on her at all, it's just a match summary across a number of leagues and as far as I can see she is covered in precisely one sentence. This is the very definition of trivial coverage noted by WP:SIGCOV as not supporting GNG. Furthermore the league she plays in will become fully professional according to plans next season, not at the turn of the year. We don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. --SuperJew (talk) 10:27, 24 November 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.