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 keep. There's a real weakness i the quality of this discussion in that editors have not explicitly been able to highlight for the sources behind paywalls what is specifically contained that satisfies gng, but it is clear that there are sources out there and pretty clear consensus at the moment is to keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A footballer that has spent most of her career in the amateur, regional divisions of Germany. None of her appearances meet WP:NFOOTBALL.

Searching for sources, including using those in the German Wikipedia article, gave these as the three best sources; a transfer announcement in NW, another transfer announcement in RS and this article in a local paper. The last source is the only one that comes close to showing WP:SIGCOV but it isn't enough to pass WP:GNG, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I also found [1] while [2], [3], and [4] (which if there's any length to it would be directly on her) are paywalled. There's also quite a few match report articles like [5] [6] in which she's not significantly covered. Quite a bit of coverage, actually - I'd be neutral since this isn't a home run but will be going with weak keep since there's clearly enough here to write a decent article from. SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources from SportingFlyer: WAZ is a major newspaper in NRW and links from it were not trivial match reports. Article needs improving, not deleting. Seany91 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think SportingFlyer has picked up some good sources there, I do feel it could use a bit more, I see room for the article to be improved, borderline GNG pass for me. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there now a growing consensus among the community that transfer announcements and injury announcements add up to passing GNG? GNG is, of course, deliberately vague and open to all sorts of interpretations but I had always thought that such coverage was considered routine and generally ignored for notability purposes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me personally, there's a difference between transfer/injury stories in a major news outlet vs. for example a blog. If one of the largest newspapers in the most populous state in Germany deemed her transfer/injury noteworthy enough to write about it, that's good enough for me. Seany91 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all of these stories were routine transfer/injury stories (though again some were paywalled), the coverage's not dissimilar to what you might see for a lower division men's player and it's not as if she's a completely random player since she did play in the German top flight and captained a 2. Bundesliga side. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that she is definitely mentioned in this source? Google translates it to 'Confused wrestling [or struggle] for 09 women'. I was wondering if there was a preview of the article somewhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be translated as "Confusing fight for 09 [Wattenscheid] Women," just a Google translate issue. Not sure if it's SIGCOV or not, just that it came up in meine Deutschsuche. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Try searching Google with the article title and Hoffmann ;) Gives in the preview Konfuses Ringen um 09-Frauen. Bastian Angenendt ... Laura Hoffmann und Sara Doorsoun-Khajeh wechseln zu Bundesligisten. Konfus bis --SuperJew (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell from the excerpt alone whether the source is just a passing mention of Hoffmann or something more in-depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: You asked Do we know that she is definitely mentioned in this source? My above comment shows she is definitely mentioned, but indeed does not show the depth of it or not. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL aka WP:NFOOTY excludes the majority of top women's leagues around the world and is unreliable. Hmlarson (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- leaning delete. From the 16 comments on the second WAZ ref ("confused wrestlers"), that article seems to be entirely focused on Herr Jacob's activities and very unlikely to provide SIGCOV of Laura (who isn't mentioned once even indirectly by the commenters). Since we can't know that the other refs are SIGCOV, we can't use them to support anything in our article other than what can be gleaned from the headlines, which for me since this is a BLP puts me more in the "delete" camp. JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't delete articles on the grounds that an article may be inaccessible to a specific user. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALLAloolkaparatha (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG with articles in major news source about her. We also should remember that Wikipedia is not based entirely on online sources, and not every source is readily available to all readers. --SuperJew (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG. NFOOTY is a failed SNG since it is such an unreliable predictor of GNG. Although women's football biographies account for <3% of all footballer biographies they seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention at AfD. You have to wonder about the motivations of those involved. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like NFOOTBALL but it is the relevant guideline until somebody comes up with an SNG that supersedes it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Daz Sampson and SuperJew, which sources demonstrate she passes GNG? The WAZ article on her injury that no one can access? The very short local article mentioning her appearances on B-Junior teams? The only source I found even remotely close to SIGCOV is this, but it's hyperlocal, not in depth at all, and is basically routine recovery news. This leaves the paywalled articles as the sole potential for meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: The sources you mentioned and the articles in WAZ which is a big newspaper. The articles being paywalled does not make them less reliable or count less for GNG or SIGCOV. If you think that is the truth, you can go ahead and delete a mountain of articles about footballers from the 1990s and earlier who are based entirely on non-internet non-free sources. --SuperJew (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew:, being paywalled absolutely does preclude us from asserting the articles contain SIGCOV. If we can't see what's written and don't have any evidence that such articles virtually always provide in-depth profiles, we can't claim they support GNG. I have maintained this position in dozens of sports AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: You may maintain whatever position you wish. But per Wikipedia policy, as said on WP:PAYWALL: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. --SuperJew (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, but in order to actually cite a paywalled source you have to know what it contains. No one here is suggesting non-trivial content that could be added to the article from WAZ, or that WAZ regularly provides stellar in-depth coverage of players in its injury reports; no one is even claiming they have access to WAZ, so there is no dispute over whether it can be cited in the article -- which is what PAYWALL is supposed to mediate. If PAYWALL was a loophole in GNG we could allege SIGCOV exists for anyone whose name appears in a headline. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ignoring the baseless accusations of sexism from a particular editor, I think the sources found by SportingFlyer are probably sufficient for GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - When Fenix down writes, "I agree with sporting flyer that just because an individual User can't access a source we don't delete. The problem here is no one seems to be able to access them and if that is the case then, tantalising as it is, we can't say if they amount to sigcov. No rush to conclude yet but we really need someone to outline what the paywalled articles say if assertions of GNG are to carry real weight." - that is an opinion. Is there a reason you don't add your comment(s) to the discussion instead of repeatedly declaring yourself arbitrator of these discussions on articles about women's footballers? WP:INVOLVED and hiding in re-list commentary is problematic. Hmlarson (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Fenix down has given similar relisting feedback on tons of AfDs for men in numerous sports. Portraying this as if they (or any other !voters here) are on some misogynist vendetta against women footballers is extremely disingenuous and a pretty clear personal attack. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the gender of AfD subject, opinions shouldn't be listed in a relisting comment. I also hope that Fenix down doesn't intend to eventually close this AfD and later state that they didn't think they were involved. --SuperJew (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay - LOL. Ping me next time. Any editor can close the discussion, but Fenix down seems to be really on it in this area (you seem "new here", though, interestingly enough). Maybe review the evidence based on the edittor's "contributions" or if you'd like I suppose we can ask him if he keeps a calendar / obsessively checks every day to close right at 7 days. Odd, huh.Hmlarson (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2021 (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.