Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amélie Barbetta


 * 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Amélie Barbetta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Clearly some significant coverage. The UEFA source can be said to be independent, but as all editors with any experience know we need more than a single source to demonstrate GNG and the St Ettiene sources, being from her own club are to close to primary sources to be acceptable for establishing notability. No harm in extending for another week to allow further investigation for new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Keep. Easily passes WP:NFOOTY due to playing in the highest French feminine division and winning the 2010 UEFA feminine U19 Championship. As for GNG, here's another UEFA article about her. Could those who support delete please flesh out the rationale for arguing that she doesn't pass NFOOTY? Pilaz (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)). Striking my !vote.Pilaz (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes GNG. Even just the UEFA article on her would suffice. Seany91 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails GNG with a lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The UEFA source coverage is that she scored two goals against Macedonia and plays for Saint Etienne. The Saint Etienne source can be ignored entirely as it isn't independent of her. I couldn't find any sigcov of her either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Passes GNG. The UEFA article is enough to ensure notability – they don't produce articles about just any old player. The St Etienne source is fine although I would want to see more if it was the only one. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the only additional sources that I can find are Footofeminin and another UEFA article. Is this enough? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Not enough coverage, the UEFA piece is not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 16:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree.   scope_creep Talk  15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. She does not pass WP:NFOOTY because she hasn't played for a team in a fully professional league or for a senior (not youth) national team. Your new source has already been linked to above. The only Barbetta related info in that source is that she is returning after 10 months from an ankle injury. The rest is all about the French U-19 team. Dougal18 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The UEFA source seems largely derived from an interview, with the interviewer essentially summarizing her statements before each quote without really providing independent analysis. If this one source is the most SIGCOV she's received in 10 years I would say GNG is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing and coverage are insufficient to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.