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 no consensus. Opinion is divided between those who support deletion because the sources are deemed insufficient, and those who support keeping because they consider the sourcing sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. That's a matter of judgment which I can't second-guess as closer (and shouldn't even if I knew something or indeed cared about football), so we're left with no consensus and a "keep" by default. There's also discussion about issues of systemic bias and about the subject's league's importance or professionalism. These parts of the discussion also do not help us to arrive at a consensus. Nonetheless, I'm of the view that our deletion policy's principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" should be taken into account particularly when, as here, we are faced with potential issues of systemic bias, which confirms the "no consensus keep" outcome.  Sandstein  12:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Fife[edit]

Jenna Fife (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)

Scottish League is not fully professional and she has not made an international appearance, therefore she fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG with no ind. coverage going in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR. If the Scottish league rates relatively high due to results in European competition, those will be largely (if not entirely) based on Glasgow City (who Jenna Fife doesn't play for). They have won the Scottish league for the last several years and have been the Scottish representative in European competition for all of that period. Calling the Scottish league "not professional" is pretty straightforward – it's based on the fact that the players are not paid to play. You ignore the fact that there are ways of this player (and others) becoming notable – they could play a full international or they could join a professional club. She hasn't done either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that having an article on Wikipedia is primarily linked to notability. In football terms, notability is strongly linked to professional status; with the exception of a few clubs funded by sponsors, most clubs can only turn professional if they have sufficient numbers of people coming to watch them. Implcitily, this means more people will be aware of professional players are they play in front of larger crowds. Women's football is less popular as a spectator sport than men's football, and as a result, its players are less notable. And before the usual gender bias accusations start flying around, I am interested in women's football, have written several articles on it and even attended the 2011 World Cup – however, I recognise that women's football (like non-League football, which I also follow) is less notable. Number 57 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the list shows Hibernian on position No. 45 of Europe. I would say at least the top 100 clubs are relevant for a sport that is played by millions of ladies in Europe. Furthermore Hibernian qualified for the UEFA Women's Champions League next season (is that not a reason to collect the squad information) – so they are not that unrelevant. The Vrouwen Eredivisie is scored as professional league, I'm close to an ex-player, I can tell you it's not professional from a money point of view just like in Scotland (maybe with Ajax and Twente for some players as a semi-pro option). Those leagues are interchangeable in money. But in merit the Scottish league has simply done better. By only taking the national team caps as relevant. You are making a Moldovan cap more important than a Scottish SWPL player (while the latter is more relevant). In my opinion you should pick the 30 top leagues of the world and do those first (i'm very much willing to help). Scotland should be part of that. Lets agree on such a list – that is more based on merit, that would make me happy. Are you as well starting delete all the hugh works that people for instance did on profiles of the W.League in Australia ? The last argument to not delete would be that it would demotivate me after all things I have added (but I understand in the ruthlessly factual Wikipedia world that is probably no argument :) NEW --> I see now all Glasgow City players are also under suspicion by Jmorrison230582 – so much of them will also be deleted. This is for the team that was in the quarter final of Europe some years ago. On the gender bias, I'm a man, so I'm not naturally biased to be biased (that is biased in your definition). What is clear is that we are not reporting on a sport like "Tiddly Winks". This is women's football, probably in the top 5 of most played women's sports, with millions of players. And we fail to even be able to cover one of the top 10 leagues in Europe with player profiles. Sorry for the long story, but something in me states I really have to disagree with this talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think your idea is a non-starter. Choosing X number of leagues to allow player articles is WP:OR at its worst, not to mention a logistical nightmare as the rankings change. If you want to change the guideline, the place to start a conversation is at WT:FOOTY, then take it to the sports guideline talk page if there is consensus. As it stands, I hope you accept that this player fails our notability guidelines. Number 57 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just added a few more references from Sky Sports, BBC, The Herald, and the Edinburgh Reporter to re-inforce WP:GNG. There's more out there if anyone is willing to contribute to the article rather than spending their time in another deletion discussion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept because I have no other choice. But I will stop using Wikipedia. I was a one day enthusiastic about Wikipedia's capabilities of neutral coverage of the women's game. But I now found out that people are more focussed on getting rid of new contributions than on trying to help get women's football on in a quality matter. YOU WON (hope you are happy with it) ! BUT I'M GONE ! Your WP:OR is simply untrue, since I only added some start-up sources. You just don't know which sources in women's football are the solid ones. Further the whole 'professional league' discussion is a shambles. It's trying to scientifically find a frame to exclude women's football, which makes no sense to anyone that knows about women's football more deeply. Ciao !! talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Funafuti1978: Deletion discussions are often frustrating – but I'd encourage you to keep contributing. Your contributions are appreciated – despite what some might want you to believe. This particular discussion isn't over and nobody has "won." I'd be happy to explain more if you'd like, leave me a message via my Talk page if you're interested. Hmlarson (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, it's framed to exclude non-notable football. The fact that many women's football subjects fall into this is reflective of the fact that there is less interest in women's football compared to men's – for instance, in England the women's top division has an average attendance closest that of the sixth level of the men's pyramid (i.e. two levels lower than where we have the cut-off point for male player notability). Wikipedia reflects reality, and is not here to WP:Right great wrongs – this is neutrality. Number 57 16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion will always be... your opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what that's meant to mean, but the differential between men's and women's football referred to above in terms of public interest is a fact. Number 57 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly that notion is more important to some editors than Wikipedia policy. Good to note. 12 Hmlarson (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Women's football is of a broadly similar status to men's football in a few countries, particularly the USA, but this is not true of Scotland. The matches of the national team are fairly well covered by the main outlets (some games are televised on BBC Alba), so the international players (many of whom play professionally elsewhere) are reasonably well known. At club level, you get a weekly roundup of matches on the BBC Sport site (eg last weekend) and very little coverage of individual players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To give further context, the Scotland women's team played at home tonight in a competitive international match (UEFA Euro 2017 qualifying). Pretty important match as the team may qualify for a tournament for the first time ever (the men haven't qualified for nearly 20 years either). Attendance? 1,300. Rightly or wrongly, there simply isn't the level of interest or coverage in women's football in Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentially related discussion of men's women's football taken to User_talk:Funafuti1978
  • Comment First of all the fact that only men are discussing this, shows that Wikipedia, football and debate in general is still a men's world (sorry to bring the gender comment again – eventhough I am a man). Second of all it looks like discussing is more important here than making Wikipedia a bigger success. We are not talking about low level amateur players wanting to be covered on Wikipedia here, we are talking about top division players from one of the worlds top 25 women's soccer countries (FIFA Ranking / EWCR Ranking): Scotland. In my opinion players from the following top divisions should be covered:

North America: USA – NWSL (easy)

Asia: Japan – Nadeshiko League (doable) Korea Republic – WK League (doable) Australia – W.League (easy) China – Chinese Women's National League (tricky)

South America:

Brazil – Campeonato Brasileiro (easy) Chile – Primera Division (tricky) Colombia – Colombian League (tricky)

Europe:

Germany – Frauen Bundesliga (easy) France – Femeinine Division 1 (easy) England – WSL 1 (easy) Sweden – Damallsvenskan (easy) Norway – Toppserien (easy) Netherlands – Vrouwen Eredivisie (doable) Italy – Serie A (doable) Spain – Primera Division (doable) Denmark – Elitedivisionen (tricky) Switzerland – Nationalliga A (easy) Iceland – Urvalsdeild (easy) Scotland – SWPL (tricky) Russia – Supreme Division (doable) Ukraine – Premier League (easy) Austria – Frauenliga (easy) Poland – Ekstraliga (doable) Serbia – Prva Zvenska (tricky)

Players having at least one appearance in those competitions are mostly far better players than national team players from Vietnam, Jordan, Bulgaria, Faroe Islands, Haiti, Venezuela or Zambia who are featured and allowed to be covered on Wikipedia. What is unclear is that the money above merit argument for leagues is not there for national teams. Are those national teams all fully professional? Mostly they are absolutely not. Are they well covered in their countries, mostly absolutely not. So Wikipedia is favouring the real unprofessional above the semi professional. Then another thing, in the Vrouwen Eredivisie (a leagues someone decided to be professional on Wikipedia – which it is not – can someone finally explain why SWPl is an issue and Vrouwen Eredivisie not?) there are women teams that train more than their professional men counter parts. Which means the ladies loose more time on their sports while combining it with studies, while the men earn more for less work. Professionalism isn't only related to money – it's also related to the effort you make to reach your goal. It is quite clearly the men in this discussion have never even been close to women's football, than they would have known what time the ladies in these top divisions invest to reach the top. Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best not to derail this specific AfD with a wider discussion on female football notability, that would be better at WT:FOOTY or WT:FPL, but I think you are focussing far too much on the subject specific guideline. You need to consider two points: firstly that the reason NFOOTY at least sort of works is that it acknowledges international footballers as being players, regardless of gender who have played at the highest possible level. Secondly, and this is the key thing, NFOOTY is always superceded by GNG. If an individual, regardless of gender is not receiving significant coverage specifically about them then it doesn't matter what level anyone perceives them to play at, the lack of coverage means they are not notable. The opposite is also therefore true by definition. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I agree with is that there needs to be a framework. I also understand the current framework works well for men's football – since if you guys say it does I believe so (all though some in the list are a bit arbitrary – most look right). But it is simply sure it does not work for women's football for all the above reasons – since only 1 league would really fit that model (which is NWSL – probably the only fully 'money-wise' professional league in women's football). But in what women need to do for it – there are far more professional leagues. And in strength it could be that on some days clubs in Bundesliga, Damallsvenskan, Feminine 1 would simply beat NWSL clubs (who are professional). So in my opinion the only measurement is merit and results. I picked a combinaton of the leagues from the top 25 teams on the FIFA Ranking (that have a organized league pyramid) and the highest performing leagues in the continents that have a club competition (Copa Libertadores Feminino and UEFA Women's Champions League – based on EWCR). That should be good enough to cover the world of women's football in a proper way. If we would have a sensible rule I would have defended it with you, but the current rule qualifies only 1 league (NWSL). And next to that everybody is breaking the rule online – see Vrouwen Eredivisie profiles, W. League, Bundesliga profiles etc. Which is the best proof the rule does not work. Or you need to do a hugh clean-up operation. Then on your second point, the amount of articles about players. I think that is not the biggest problem, I just did not do a full research on those players yet. Women's football at a good level is well covered in regional and country-wide newspapers – but not in all countries those newspapers have good online sources. Furthermore UEFA, FIFA, FAs, official club websites should be trustworthy sources. Funafuti1978 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the discussion. Delete the thing. You already have hurt too much. You have made it again.
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. It's 2016 – just because the UK is backwards, doesn't mean we should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: There are more articles on male players because there are more professional male players. The same is the case for politicians because there are more male politicians. Regardless of what year this is, this is reality. Also, please withdraw your personal attack. Number 57 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no personal attack – though I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age. There are many sports listed in WP:ATHLETE where we don't apply the "fully-professional" league rule, and allow for "professional" in other sports (such as Canadian and American football). If we are willing to have different rules for other types of football, then there's no reason we can't apply different rules for different genders. The concept of applying the same rules for female footballers as we do for male footballers is misogynistic – when we could choose to apply the rules for female footballers to be the same as American footballers. I don't think establishing the rules this way was in itself misogynistic – but failing to change it when the WP:BIAS is demonstrated, is misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: You have accused editors of misogyny, and if you do not withdraw it, you will be reported at ANI. Applying the same rules to both genders is unbiased; having different rules would be biased. The fact is that fewer female footballers are notable because there is less interest in it as a spectator sport. This may reflect badly on society, but it is a fact. It would be grossly unfair to male footballers who play in semi-professional leagues to deny them an article when females in similar leagues are allowed them. Number 57 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused any individual of misogyny; I'm not sure why you are distracting from the point. How do you justify that we can apply different rules to American Football, but can't apply those rules to Women's football. Yes, there is less interest in it as a spectators sport. But in other sports where there is less interest as a spectators sport, we only require that the league is profesional – not fully professional. That's where we are being misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Because they are different sports. This is the same sport. ANI report to follow shortly, I will notify you on your talk page. Number 57 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57:But with different genders. ANI report for what? I'm accusing us all of misogyny – myself included as I've gone along with this in the past. I've been just as much a misogynist on this as anyone. I've only just realised the implication, because we apply different standards for other male-dominated sports. I think you are misinterpreting my meaning here. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Gender should not matter – notability of footballers is directly linked to interest in the sport. Number 57 22:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course gender matters. You are saying that a sport such as american football where we accept that because of the smaller player base, that it doesn't have to be fully-professional, but reject the same for Women's football based simply on gender? We need to fix this – it is clearly and blatantly wrong, and is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: On the contrary, I would say the bias is in the American Football guidelines. The size of the player base has no real impact on notability as far as I am aware. Number 57 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was simply an example, that I chose going down the list of sports – and it's the first sport listed. There's certainly others. Ice hockey, Basketball, Cycling, Equestrian for example. We could very easily choose to change Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. to men who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable; while women who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a professional league, will generally be regarded as notable to recognize the huge differences between the two sports. Nfitz (talk)
But what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable when a male counterpart is not? Number 57 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy voting to send a decently-written, verifiable woman's biography to the dustbin when we have so few, but external bias is not a valid retention criteria. In my view, it would be both unfair and unwise to keep a biography of a woman when a comparable biography about a man would likely be deleted. Perhaps our notability criteria are too strict: I think it would be to the Project's advantage to retain interesting, credibly-sourced, unbiased articles such as this even when their subjects aren't notable. But this is not the place for that discussion.
However this closes, I'd like to say that I salute Cirt's efforts in expanding the article.  Rebbing  08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind comments about my quality improvement efforts to the page. — Cirt (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2016 (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.
More