Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 3 April 2016

Brogan Hay

Brogan Hay (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)

Contested PROD with no reason given. Subject fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. This is irrelevant however, as there is no indication whatsoever that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage in third party sources for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:GNG criteria clearly met. WP:NFOOTY and its perpetually incomplete WP:FPL essay (as noted clearly at the top of the page) is largely irrelevant to women's top-division leagues around the world. Adequate references provided for WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep unless a viable solution for the top-division of women's football has been resolved and the conclusion declares that women playing in the top-level league in their country still aren't notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the deliberately misleading claim above, WP:NFOOTY is entirely relevant here. The player does not play in a fully-professional league, so does not meet the criteria. @The Rambling Man: I'm not sure what you mean by a "viable solution"; I would be extremely uncomfortable with a double standard that said women playing in non fully-professional leagues are notable but men are not. Number 57 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  I personally think that's bias against women's sports, especially when they receive coverage in notable third party reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Why is it bias? They are judged by the same criteria. The lack of professional women's leagues is because it is less popular as a spectator sport, meaning that the players themselves are less notable. If WSL players were deemed to be automatically notable and National League players not (despite playing in front of crowds almost twice the size), I would say that would be bias. Number 57 10:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs some work, but definitely meets notability requirements. We should not be reinforcing Misplaced Pages's demonstrated systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @VanEman: There is no bias. Players are held to the same standards whether they are male or female. We also delete articles on male footballers in top divisions that are not fully professional (see these recent AfDs). Number 57 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion that there's no bias, but that's just your opinion. Just because a "standard" is applied equally doesn't make it a good standard. VanEman (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@VanEman: If a standard is applied equally, then by the very definition of the word, there is no bias... Number 57 18:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. If admissions to the Ivy League is based on height and the minimum standard is applied equally--you have to be six feet tall---that doesn't mean there is no bias. The standard is not a good one, and inappropriately eliminates what I think are appropriate candidates. Same here. I would argue that notability as an athlete is a matter of subjectivity, not a single rule. VanEman (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@VanEman: I think the height argument is a straw man – this is not a rule than naturally excludes women – there is nothing to stop women's football leagues being fully-professional, except the relative lack of interest compared to men's football – and it is this relative difference that affects the relative notability levels. A better comparison would be the WP:Politician guideline – i.e. that all MPs in national parliament are automatically deemed notable. This rule means more articles on male politicians are deemed automatically notable than for female politicians, as in almost all countries, there are more male MPs than female. However, this does not mean the rule itself is biased, it is simply a reflection of real life. Number 57 19:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You sound just like Ray Moore on women and men in tennis. I hear that his position is open now, so why don't you call Larry Ellison and tell him you'd like to apply for the gig.VanEman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@VanEman: It's a shame you feel you have to bring the debate down to that level. If professional status is not the best indicator of notability for footballers, what do you suggest is? The only realistic alternative I have heard that doesn't include separate rules for men's and women's footballers (which would be biased) is to allow articles on all players in top divisions – however, this has been rejected on numerous occasions as it would mean we have articles on footballers who play in the top divisions of countries like Andorra and the Faroe Islands. Number 57 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree entirely that reliance on the list at WP:FPL is, and has been for a long time, nonsensical. And the only even remotely accurate alternative I can think of would be for a working group to go through every country in the world looking at players with varying ranges of appearances, seeing how many apps they needed in each league for most of them to meet WP:BIO, and drawing up a notable leagues list accordingly. And given the obvious systematic bias involved in availability of sources – in terms both of language and of ease of access – not to mention the unlikelihood of finding volunteers, I can't see that working. So we have to use WP:BIO.

  The sources currently in Ms Hay's article come nowhere near meeting the requirements of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I can't find anything to add to the article to get it closer to meeting those requirements. Namechecks, match reports, but very little of significance. If a page for a male under-age international were at AfD with a similar lack of non-trivial coverage, it'd have six or seven delete votes by now. If a page for a player in the not fully pro English National League or in the top-division but not fully pro League of Ireland were at AfD, it'd have to reach something approaching WP:GA standard before it'd be kept. The UK media doesn't cover women's football in any great detail, although it's improving. I'm not convinced how constructive it is to try to override WP:BIO for subjects that we think the media should be interested in but isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - ignoring the WP:NFOOTBALL aspect here (which even the keepers say she fails!), this article fails WP:GNG as well. Non-notable, sorry. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I'm tired of the WP:BIAS and misogyny where we develop guidelines designed primarily by males to minimize the article for top female players compared to top male players. Plays in top division of football in Scotland. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nfitz: As you are aware, we delete numerous articles on male players in top divisions because they don't meet the criteria either. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the guideline was specifically designed to minimise the number of eligible female players? Also, it's a shame that we can't seem to get through a debate about a female footballer without accusations of misogyny, chauvinism etc; perhaps a new version of Godwin's law is required... Number 57 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is clear, simply from the much larger number of article for current male footballers compared to females. The guidelines that let this happen are misogynistic, and those that defend them are misogynists. It's 2016 - just because the UK is backwards, doesn't mean we should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates