Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sanders


 * 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. Borderline, but enough sources and consensus to keep.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Amy Sanders

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

She had a cup of coffee in the WNBA five years ago. It's not nearly enough to establish notability. Although WP:ATHLETE states that she is presumed notable by virtue of having appeared in at least one WNBA game, it's obvious in this case that the presumption falls well short of reality. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep changed to  Uncertain I wouldn't object to changing the guideline here, but we still have it, and I think at least this part of it, that appearance on the court in one regular season game is sufficient,   has general consensus. I don't realy see the point of challenging it--we have enough to do getting rid of the articles where the people haven't even done that.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the guideline, and I wouldn't have nominated the article if it was someone who had played a few games in the NBA. However, I was a little surprised to see that the one-game proviso applies to WNBA appearances, a league which, in terms of fan interest and level of play, is more on par with the Women's Professional Football League than with, say, the NBA or MLB. In any event, the guideline is just a guideline - by no means are we required to keep the article if the subject hasn't had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I don't see any likelihood that this will ever be improved beyond a three-line stub. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to Uncertain. The level of the league might well be another matter; the guideline's assignments of what leagues make someone notable havbe been challenged in various sports, and I don't think there's reallly full consensus on them. The actual level is not a question I can judge, however. But I disagree strongly that the intent or acceptance of the guideline should necessarily to be limited further by GNG. It provides an alternate route.   DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Comment She did have a career overseas, as well, although I don't know if people in Europe care about women's basketball any more than they do in the US. There is some German-language material available (eg, ), but I'm not sure how to judge such sources. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem that there are at least bits and pieces of material out there (Pakhtakorienne has added a little bit more), so I'll say weak keep. Zagal e jo^^^ 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is going to be a weird one for me, but keep without prejudice to deletion if the guideline is changed. She played in the highest-level professional league she was permitted to play in. Period. The fact that the WNBA is considered by many to be a joke is irrelevant as long as the guideline says what it does, and I see no reason to WP:IGNORE it in this case. But if the guideline is changed by consensus (a question I'm currently neutral on) I have no objection to deleting this article once it's changed. The accurate comparison, in my opinion, is the Negro Leagues vs. MLB. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we delete the article, we wouldn't be ignoring the guideline. It states, "...the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." The guideline only offers a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. The presumption of notability should still be able to hold up under additional scrutiny, and in this case I don't believe that it does. Literally nothing of significance has been written about her. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. While it does meet WP:ATH, the guideline states "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."  It also clearly states (bold is from the actual guideline), "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline" If the guideline is still under debate, WP:IAR policy states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  Cleaning up an article for which sufficient content reliable sources cannot be identified is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I tried expanding the article with references. Maybe it is acceptable now? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say that those sources definitely improve it. In my opinion, setting asside WP:NSPORT, the article now clearly passes the WP:GNG threshhold, whereas before it was borderline. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to for the effort to add sources to the article.  However, I stand by my earlier !vote to delete. I did a English translation of the foreign language sources added, but the sources are WP:ROUTINE announcements of a few sentences each of her joining/leaving a team. The WP:GNG requirement of multiple independent sources of significant coverage has not been demonstrated to my expectations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to her brother, M. Shadows. This article does not meet WP:GNG per my earlier comments, but the two sentences of existing text can be WP:PRESERVEd by redirecting and merging to her notable brother's article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found more stuff to build on 's great work. There are clearly enough sources out there to take the article beyond a three line stub and into WP:GNG territory. Also passes WP:NSPORT, as already established. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The editors who have been working on this article have done excellent work and should be commended. A lot of the coverage still seems a bit on the trivial side to me, but I've always had the opinion that a lot of trivial coverage is roughly equivalent to significant coverage, so I'm not as anxious to see this article deleted as I was a week ago. Perhaps the athlete guideline had it right all along. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I also appreciate the effort, but concur with about the trivial nature of the latest sources. I note that the sources from University of Hawaii, WNBA, and BBVL are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, as she has played for each.  While they are reliable sources, they cannot be used to establish notability. To alleviate concerns that the article has been WP:BOMBARDed, it would be helpful if specific sources of significant coverage are identified in this AfD in case I have overlooked them.  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the circumstances, these websites can be used to establish notability to show if the subject did play for the league. As for me, Keep until there's more discussion held in WP:NSPORTS what to do with women basketball players who played in the top tier of their sport and looking at the sources it seems like she just passes WP:GNG. Secret account 05:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My previous comment was a followup to my !vote that the article did not meet GNG. Non-independent sources are suitable for establishing NSPORTS. Per the guideline, playing at the "top tier" provides a presumption of notability, but ultimately NSPORTS requires GNG to be demonstrated. If anyone wants to discuss specific content in sources for establishing GNG, we can progress beyond WP:POLLing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A note on point of order: notability is presumed, not guaranteed, when the NSPORT (or any other notability guideline) is met. Even if the guideline says that we should presume this person notable because they played in the highest league, if consensus agrees there's a complete lack of other coverage, deletion is an acceptable option. --M ASEM (t) 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We know, thanks. But most if not all of these sources "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I'm from the UK and know absolutely nothing about basketball but was able to find perfectly adequate coverage of this professional athlete's entire career trajectory. As with all female athletes the sources are of relatively poor quality, but there is a danger we set the bar at a level which would rule out nearly all WNBA players. Or by extension, other professional female athletes. Consensus at NSPORT is very clear that, all things being equal, we should be ruling them in. As suggests above, here is not the place to challenge that consensus. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While noble, there is no WP consensus to provide leniency for articles with trivial coverage to push a greater cause such as gender equality in sports coverage.  Coverage needs to exists before WP writes about it.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus exists, in part, to stop people pretending this sort of coverage is trivial. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * disagree with your interpretation. If the goal was to "stop people pretending" it would have labelled it a guarantee and not repeatedly used "presumed" throughout the guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I prefer to stick to the WP:ATH criteria. WNBA players are notable as they are playing in the top women's league in the World. I think drawing (in my opinion) arbitrary lines beyond this standard is asking for trouble. How about we delete guys who had one at bat in MLB? Rikster2 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If an MLB player who only had one at-bat does not pass GNG, it should be deleted. (And I am active on WikiProject Baseball). The guideline clearly states, "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."  ATH provides a "bright-line guidance" that is applicable in most cases, but the guideline is clear there are exceptions.  As  stated earlier, the guideline is a presumption and not a guarantee of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you'd be pretty much alone among your WP:Baseball brethren then. Plenty of minor turn of the century ball players got zero media converge as individuals, yet I think everyone listed in the Baseball Encyclopedia has an article at this point.  In practice, pretty much every top sports league operates under this guidance.  I think the objection to this player stems from it being WOMEN'S basketball and personally I think it shows significant gender bias. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Offline references generally cover articles for historical MLB players. It's quite presumptuous to say that other baseball editors would ignore GNG if those offline sources were not eventually found. Is there a presumption that WNBA has the same offline sources? If so, I would be open if anyone wanted to commit to finding those sources in a reasonable time frame (3 months?) It is not a gender bias to state that society to date covers men's basketball more than women's.  The bias is in the coverage and the public's interest, not in the statement regarding the state of past and existing coverage. This is not the place to right WP:GREATWRONGS.  I assume nobody is implying there is a conscious attempt to be biased in this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * offline resources also cover Sanders' WNBA career in the same depth as some early baseball pioneers. I have at least 6 WNBA registers sitting on a shelf that cover her in the same detail.  But whatever, my opinion is registered (and so is yours). Rikster2 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the registers are independent (not affiliated with the WNBA) and have significant coverage (e.g. beyond stats), it would sway my opinion in whether GNG is met or likely to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If they're the same registers I'm thinking of, they're published by The Sporting News. They mostly concentrate on stats, but they do provide some basic biographical details, and one can build reasonably detailed articles by using them. Zagal e jo^^^ 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

She received plenty of coverage in college, WNBA and Europe. I think she meets GNG, even if barely. She's even had a trading card produced. As a side note, there are MANY early MLB players whose entire coverage in independent sources is a regurgitation of their stats. That is no more or less significant. Rikster2 (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, you can find a decent amount of info on many early baseball players if you do some digging through offline newspaper archives and such. Baseball was well-covered by the media from an early date. (Circa 1900, anyway. I won't make any promises about 1870s players.) Zagal e jo^^^ 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, the bright line notability standards that we've had for athletes do save us a lot of time and anguish. If we started to argue over the notability of every baseball player who has an article, we'd never get much else done, and we'd piss off a lot of people in the process. (It would be the WP:WAF battles all over again.) Zagal e jo^^^ 23:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the general rule is thus: an athlete is presumed notable if she played on at a least one game at the highest level, but prospects and drafts do not count by themselves. Do we have any reliable evidence that she played basketball with WNBA, or did she really just sip coffee from the sidelines? Bearian (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) :Based on this article, keep, because she played and scored two points. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the keep because ATH has priority over GNG, or because GNG was met? My intent is not to change your !vote, but to determine if WP:ATH's  stated requirement for GNG to be met is still reflective of the community's actual practices or is possibly obsolete.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both WP:ATH and WP:GNG are both presumptions of notability, not mandates to keep, and both apply here. Also, the standards rule of interpretation of (legal) rules dictate that the specific rule governs when the general rule is unclear.  Finally, WP:ATH is essentially still a very well-respected notability guideline, and unless my reading is way off, consensus has not changed. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. If GNG is met, I would rethink my opinion if specific independent sources that are beyond ROUTINE coverage were identified in this discussion.  Being wary of WP:WABBITSEASON, I'm bowing out unless it involves a discussion of specific sources.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (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.