Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashleigh Connor

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. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)reply

Ashleigh Connor

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

Contested PROD. Connor fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NFOOTBALL - the W-League, which she did play in, is not fully-professional. Giant Snowman 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply

Keep. Yes, the W-League isn't fully professional, so Connor doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY (though it is absurd that someone who plays one minute in the fourth tier of English men's football is automatically notable, while professional players in the W-League aren't because not every player in the league is professional). In any case, it's abundantly clear that Connor passes GNG, having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See for example The Sydney Morning Herald, Illawarra Mercury, ABC to name a few. But these are all related to her death, what about WP:BIO1E? Well see ABC, Australian FourFourTwo, Sports Australia, The Examiner, SportsAustralia, Australian FourFourTwo, Australian FourFourTwo, Newcastle Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, all of which are from before her death. Also note that the article was not just created as a result of her death, but has existed since 2009, and that there is a German article on Connor and it's common knowledge that de.wiki takes a much tougher stance on notability than en.wiki. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep W-League players have generally been considered notable. I would think that it is appropriate to extend notability to players in the highest level of women's football in each country (especially a country that is a World Cup quarter finalist and now 8 in the FIFA rankings) to avoid the systemic bias inherent in this encyclopedia's treatment of women's sport. Plus, what Jenks24 said. Did the nominator even look for a source? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - just because other players have articles, and other Wikipedias have an article on this woman, is not a reason for keeping. If we're going to say that "players in the highest level of women's football in each country" are inherently notable, then why not create articles on women who play in the top league of San Marino, Guam, Somalia etc. etc. To Jenks24 - thanks for finding the sources. Can you add them to the article please, and then I'll be happy to reconsider, and withdraw my nomination if needed. Regards. GiantSnowman 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply
- I admit that de.wiki having an article is not a strong reason for keeping – it was more anecdotal and by no means the basis of my argument. However, I do find Mattinbgn's reasoning to be sound. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is meant to stop arguments like "But we have articles on all those Pokemon, so we should have an article on this". In other words, comparing apples and oranges. Mattinbgn is comparing apples with apples when he correctly states that many W-League players have articles and are generally considered to be notable (though this has yet to guidelineified). Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment In its current state i would say delete but if those sources are added then will pass GNG So i would keep. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)reply
- Sources do not have to be added for the article for it to be kept. WP:N only requires that they must exist, which they do in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. The aim of Wikipedia is to be the number one source of information. If we keep deleting articles, any new information that will be valuable in an article will have no article to go in. If we keep pages, more people visiting the page will add information they know and articles will expand.SRWikis (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. She played in the top tier of Australian women's football. This nomination is ludicrous. Rebecca (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Might need a bit of cleanup, but i see no reason to delete it.Trex21 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - can anyone please point me to a notability guideline that mentions playing in "top level" is enough? Because the one that I've found and used, WP:NFOOTBALL, mentions "fully-professional league (as detailed here)", of which the W-League is NOT one. GiantSnowman 11:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
- I think people might be referring to WP:ATHLETE, which - as I recall - says that someone who has played at the highest level of amateur sport could be considered notable. However, since there are fully professional women's football leagues in other countries, and Ashleigh Connor never played in one, I think she fails that criterion. – Pee Jay 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, because the W-League is not fully-professional. I'm not sure whether the news of her death is considered significant coverage or not, so as to pass WP:GNG. PeeJay, according to WP:ATHLETE, an athlete is notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level, or if they pass WP:NFOOTY. The W-League is not an international competition, so Ashleigh is not considered notable. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)reply
- A sentence in the first paragraph of WP:NSPORTS reads "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." (my bold) As long as Connor passes GNG, it does not matter whether she passes NFOOTBALL or not. Please have a look at the sources above (and in the article) and judge whether she passes the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (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.