Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Agg (2nd nomination)

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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus (but leaning more towards keeping). I will undelete the underlying history in case there is additional usable content there. BD2412 T 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Agg

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

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

User:Dougal18's rationale in the previous AfD a few months ago, where there was clear consensus to delete, remains valid. Agg still does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. This FA article still appears to be the only independent, reliable source addressing Agg directly and in detail, as it was before.

Newly added sources are just either non-WP:RS such as Lady Arse Tumblr, LinkedIn, Daily Cannon and those that are RS are just brief transfer announcements or database profile pages, which do not confer notability. A WP:BEFORE did not come up with any further non-routine coverage since the previous discussion a few months ago indicating that she is still not notable enough for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, still non-notable per consensus at last AFD. Giant Snowman 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agg still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage easily passes WP:GNG. She was in her local paper 11 years ago and was in the news again last week, when she discovered an Irish granny and was called up to train with the Ireland national team [1] (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). There are offline sources [2] (WP:DIVERSE) as well as things like [3], [4] which are WP:RSs which go into reasonable WP:DEPTH, in that they touch on her life and career outside football. There is a German wiki article and evidence of coverage in German sources from her stint as a "fully professional" in Frankfurt [5] (WP:GEOSCOPE). And then there's the wealth of coverage of transfers, new contracts etc. which are all in WP:RSs and well beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] All in line with what you would expect to see for a notable footballer. I even remember Agg appearing on Newsnight a couple of years ago during the women's World Cup: [12] Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to WP:AGF about the She Kicks source. Aside from that, the only ones that might push this closer to GNG are BBC and Shoot. The question is whether that's enough along with the FA article linked in my nom and the sources already in the article. I would argue that transfer announcements and contract renewal announcements aren't generally SIGCOV unless the announcements themselves go into depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If this was a Norwegian fisherman or gas engineer who played three games for Bodo Glimt in 1987 you'd be trying to make the opposite argument to the one you are here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this different to a PE teacher that played 3 times for Bristol in 2017? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She's the primary subject of articles published in reliable sources such as the BBC. pburka (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BbDS, passes WP:GNG. My own search was a bit weaker but I also didn't find several of the sources presented above. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of the sources presented are quite routine, dealing mainly with transfer moves and the like, but there is also in total a bit more than "this player moved to this club then played in this match and then moved to this other club". No clear concensus yet one way or the other but to my mind there's sufficient in the sources so far to warrant further discussion to hopefully land one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. She's played in England and Germany's top leagues which are excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL. Who "manages" that guideline.... Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the totality of sources identified by BbDS above easily passes GNG. Seany91 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable sports figure. Star7924 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting comment from Fenix down is a !vote in a re-listing comment. Another WP:UNINVOLVED editor will need to close. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 17 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hoffmann. Hmlarson (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's absolutely not. You should very urgently review your understanding of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, of which you appear to be wholly ignorant. If you actually read what I wrote it is quite clearly an assessment of the sources and comments provided to explain the rationale behind the Relisting. It is quite plainly explaining the judgement I am employing which is explicitly required by that guideline. All it states is why i believe there is no consensus. If you would find it more helpful for me to close AfDs in which you have been involved without the courtesy of an explanation, please let me know. I would appreciate confirmation that you have re read the guideline I have directed you to. Fenix down (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the hectoring twaddle - you've been pulled up for this several times already. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the project would be better served, if the last month was spent improving the article, rather than trying so hard to delete an article for a women footballer, when for reasons of WP:BIAS they are already grossly unrepresented in Wikiepdia. I was surprised there was no mention of her appearances for Cardiff Met. Ladies F.C. in the 2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League, so I added a couple of easy-to-find references. I'm having no problem finding many more references over the last decade. Article should be improved, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there is a section of football Wikipedia who want to 'apply' the rules to some articles and 'interpret' them for others! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory the first version of the article, which was wrongly deleted, was better than this one. I'd expect that if/when this is closed as keep or no consensus the original is restored and merged as necessary. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Seany91 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2021 (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.