Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  JGHowes  talk 02:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Fimmano

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Angela Fimmano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer/soccer player has never played in a professional league, and only 24 matches in an amateur league. It was deprodded because there exists an interview with Fimmano, then a school student aged 17, but the interview unfortunately is not independent coverage, being a Q&A. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it was more a hopeful dePROD than anything else. After a lot of searching, I found these [1] [2] but neither of those are independent or hugely significant. Given that she has presumably retired, I can't see any other sources popping up. If anyone does find something, please ping me. Spiderone 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you folks have any further sources to suggest WP:SIGCOV other than the one that I have added to the article and the two that I have linked in this debate? Spiderone 09:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination by Geschichte is false. The W-League is not an amateur league, it is a professional league (sources: [3], [4]). What it isn't is a "fully-professional" league, which is a term used mostly on Wikipedia based on the WP:FPL essay, and hardly seen mention of elsewhere, definitely not in wide consensus or use, as would be expected of a term used to assume notability. --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Based on the sources provided, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. The sources provided do not constitute significant coverage, as they are just Q&As with the player themselves, without going too in-depth. I did a search to find other sources and did not find any that constituted in-depth coverage. Whether or not the player played at a professional level, "fully-professional" or otherwise, they still need to pass GNG, and that has not been demonstrated here. Jay eyem (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nomination statement by User:Geschichte is false, as this is most definitely a professional, and not an amateur league. Two years ago the minimum salary was increased as per this. This means that none of the players are amateur. It doesn't mean it's fully-professional - but the claim it's amateur is 100% false. And if this is wrong, what else is wrong? Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The league has been professional for years. The date of the pay rise doesn't change the claim that they were amateur then as being 100% false. Please correct your error and stop making false claims. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth correcting it to say something like "semi-professional", or at least noting that the league is not considered fully-professional since that's the benchmark typically used for presumed notability of footballers. Based on the link provided, I don't think "amateur" is an accurate descriptor when one is guaranteed a minimum of $10,000. Jay eyem (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some sources added to the article but the keep votes in this discussion barely talk about them. Editors are reminded to keep there comments on the notability of this individual and avoid wider comments around notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided confirm notability. Yes, the sources are somewhat weak but it's enough to suffice WP:GNG and since WP:NFOOTY says "presumed notable" it should be kept. Even then WP:IAR is a thing and and should be used more frequently when improving the encyclopedia. If anyone here thinks that adding articles on women footballers isn't improving Wikipedia then you have more issues than simply adhering to policy. That is not pointing fingers because I don't know anyone here personally and you don't know me. That's just an observation based on the eyeball test. :)--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Adelaide Advertiser sources demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am slightly concerned with the sources added for a couple of reasons. The main one being that the sources presented, The Advertiser and the Standard Messenger, are both tabloids, which typically are not considered to be reliable sources (especially since both are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, whose New York Post is notoriously unreliable). Is there an electronic version of these articles that is accessible? I did not find any, and that would better help determine whether GNG has been met, especially since the arguments they are supporting (being coached by David Beckham, receiving a scholarship, and being part of an advertising campaign) don't really demonstrate GNG. Not that an electronic source is necessary, but it would be helpful for these particular sources. Jay eyem (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - News Corp sources are generally accepted as reliable by Wikipedia. The Advertiser is not on the list but the Australian has been raised and accepted. Deus et lex (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find that a bit surprising given the Post's reputation and The Advertiser also being a tabloid. Is there a discussion about its notability somewhere? I do see that The Australian, being under News Corp, is accepted, although that appears to be a proper newspaper. Jay eyem (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless the source is blacklisted then it can be used. I'm not sure if you are aware that "tabloid" has a slightly different meaning in Australia to some other countries. Deus et lex (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will admit to not knowing the regional differences when referring to the use of the word "tabloid", but the argument that a source is fine as long as it isn't blacklisted is false. There is a whole manner of arguments about what constitutes an acceptable source at WP:RS and WP:V. Evaluating that isn't my area of expertise, which is why I was hoping to see a discussion about this particular source, or to at least have a digital copy presented. The burden of proof is on those arguing that the source is reliable, and it is difficult to evaluate GNG with the flimsy evidence currently presented. Jay eyem (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm well aware of the WP:RS policy and what it means - your argument was that the Advertiser is a source in general that is unreliable (to which I assume you mean along the lines of something like the Daily Mail). My response to that is that there is nothing to suggest that: it's the main newspaper for Adelaide, the state capital, and there has generally not been issues raised with its reliability - issues raised about News Corp generally relate to political bias or opinion pieces, not the reliability of news articles. By all means deal with the individual articles and whether they have significant coverage, but don't go down some road to suggest that every article in the newspaper is unreliable because that simply isn't true. Deus et lex (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This player retired from the W-League (Australia) in 2012. As of 2013, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Melissa Barbieri, another player in the league as saying, "You'd find that every club has it's own way of running, there's a salary cap but there's no floor. You'll find that a player earns $10,000 in a team and another earns nothing." [5] So, as of 2013, it sounds like the W-League was not a fully professional league, even if it is one now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia policy or guideline uses "fully-professional" as its criterion for deciding the notability of a football athlete. WP:FOOTY states that "players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". That does not preclude players not in "fully professional" leagues from being notable. It's determining factor is an essay, WP:FPL. Both the guideline and essay are extremely biased, historically and even currently, against the overwhelming majority of women footballers. I have asked how many women were involved in the writing of this essay on multiple occasions because I do believe that matters as only a small percentage of women's leagues and players are considered professional enough for inclusion in the eyes of the creators of this essay, as it currently stands. Nothing but silence from them but maybe they will respond one day. The essay also states it is "incomplete". That disqualifies it or anything it says as its factors for inclusion as a means to determine notability. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chilvers, there is nothing preventing women from contributing at WT:FPL or WT:NSPORT. AfD is not the place for this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after reading through the discussion Etc. Etc. it sounds like she was not pro at the time she played. Although, now the league she played for is pro. I don't think the notability guidelines athletes works retroactively though if they didn't play pro, they didn't play pro. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The league was discontinued in 2004 and brought back in 2008 as a professional league. She played from 2008 to 2012. The question is whether the women's leagues are or are not considered professional if they are not paid like the men's leagues. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the discussion Etc. It sounded like the pay raise happened during or after she was playing though. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be a part of the discussion. Really, I don't see why it would be anyway. I'll look back over things and change my vote if it's error though and the pay raise thing gets clearly worked out. It doesn't seem like it has. But I could have read something wrong. Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not to alter your views but simply counter them with further thought. Whether she was specifically paid or not shouldn't matter, you are correct, but that is precisely the argument of those at FPL who use NFOOTY as their basis for inclusion. Going on the sources for the Wikipedia article for the league, it was brought back in 2008 because of the need for a professional women's league in Australia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Fimmano&oldid=988099903"