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, defaulting to keep. Discussions about the applicability of WP:NFOOTBALL for female players should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). (non-admin closure) ansh666 11:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Humble[edit]

Jessica Humble (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hasn't played in a fully professional football league. Was previously deleted for the same reasons, the notability hasn't changed. Hack (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Humble played in top-division women's league in Australia. WP:NFOOTBALL is pretty much irrelevant to women's football/soccer leagues. Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Previous AFD with one participant and short duration is questionable. Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the significant coverage? Other than coverage from the FFA (who as a party to her contract are not independent), there is nothing other than routine coverage. Hack (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Hmlarson. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as noted by Hmlarson, WP:NFOOTY is almost useless when determining notability for women's football players due to the lack of women's fully-professional leagues. Playing in the W-League is a notable accomplishment. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage evidence - also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, of course. GiantSnowman 11:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Hmlarson. It is quite ridiculous that you expect the same standard of coverage for men's and women's football when they do not receive the same coverage. Also, Australia's top-league is "non-professional" only in the wages the players receive (minimal), making the women actually sacrifice a lot to play. Furthermore, with the new CBA for all of football in Australia, I could certainly see the league become fully professional, by your standards, soon enough. --SuperJew (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to make sure no one calls me out in this PC day and age, I want to make sure that it is understood I mean no personal attacks by the use of the words "you" and "your", but rather am referring to the collective of Wikipedia guidelines. --SuperJew (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, because as SuperJew says, even the top womens' football leagues get nowhere near as much coverage (or finances) as the mens, therefore playing in the top league is not a fast-track to meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. I would like womens' football to get more interest, but it doesn't at the moment. As the nominator says, there's scant evidence of any news coverage about Humble. Sionk (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmlarson and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on present WP:NSPORT and WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines, no individual W-league player is notable as they do not play in a professional league unless they have been "the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." - WP:SPORTCRIT(The same could have been said about Australian rugby league players of the 1970s who worked as garbos and brickie labourers during the week and played in the Sydney league - see WP:RLN). Most of the specific team sport criteria are similar ie. professional/country representative, but there are exceptions eg. ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY) - "2.Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;" Could the same be applied to football? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that women's football receives less coverage than men's is a reason to consider any coverage to be weightier than corresponding men's coverage - not to consider women apriori less notable as suggested by some here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. This source provided in the article is essentially the only coverage of the player outside of brief mentions in match reporting. there has essentially been no focus on this player whatsoever and this is not surprising as in the last six years, she has played only a handful of games. Not one keep comment above makes any attempt to illustrate GNG, they merely state it exists or make special pleading that since the women's game receives less coverage there should be a lower threshold of notability without pointing to any guideline to support their argument. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of evidence that WP:FPL and therefore WP:NFOOTBALL is not fit for purpose. I think GNG is met. The argument above that there is essentially no coverage, apart from the coverage, does not seem particularly compelling. Carlos Kickabaw (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Obviously fails NFOOTY because the league is not fully professional. The convincing argument to keep was by Coolabahapple who pointed out that we have articles on eighty years of rugby league players who were in the same situation. I imagine I'll get an accusation of WP:OSE, but it appears a valid precedent to me.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2015 (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.