Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Canizio (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Bianca Canizio
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Former college soccer player who has made at least seven appearances for the United States Virgin Islands women's national soccer team. It also appears she had a brief professional career in 2018. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The source in the article is a local piece about a new signing, which appears to be promotional given the final line at the bottom. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean,  and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Although I don't think the available source is as problematic as the nomination implies, there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage elsewhere. A WP:NEXIST Keep would be a stretch, in my opinion. If there are good sources on this person, I'd expect them to be available online rather than exclusively offline. And the coverage available online just isn't even close to fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) - Edited 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the last AfD for this subject had a few decent sources, including three offline ones from the Cherokee Scout that were several hundred words focusing on Canizio. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've amended the statement above to more clearly express my concern, in line with what has been discussed previously. Thanks for pointing this out!
 * I think the concerns raised about the reliability of the Cherokee Scout are quite legitimate; it seems to be that it's just too small to have meaningful editorial oversight and would probably not fare well at RSN. The reason there are concerns about small local papers with regards to reliability are not because they're small and the coverage is local, but because reliable editorial oversight and fact-checking require significant resources and specialised knowledge that usually aren't available to this kind of publication. Note that the award won for sports reporting is justified mostly through "variety" and photo-journalism (1).
 * Of course, an interview with the article subject is not independent coverage. As I mentioned, I don't share the same concerns about the WLOS article that have been brought up before, at least not to the same extent as other participants in the previous discussion. However, one probably-good source just isn't enough for GNG.
 * I found the CT source during my own search before voting, and I discarded it because it's hardly in-depth coverage. WP:NBASIC sets a pretty clear standard for that: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Not only is this just quantitatively not enough, it's also not a discussion of the subject by any means.
 * GNG is a high standard, and I don't think we should be combining multiple sources that each fail some aspect of the criteria (other than depth of coverage per WP:BASIC) to establish notability five unreliable or potentially-not-independent sources don't replace a good one. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG based on the sources presented in the previous AFD from July 2022. The WLOS source has some interview content but enough non-interview content to easily be considered independent of Ms. Canizio and provides significant coverage.  The Citizen-Times source also provides adequate coverage.  Other profiles/routine coverage in the article are not enough to pass GNG on their own but can supplement what I posted above.  Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.  Frank   Anchor  19:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The WLOS local interest piece has just a few independent sentences beyond the quotes/interviewee paraphrasing. It's also one of many such interview profiles on Asheville City soccer players by the same author over a two-week period in mid-late April, all of them hyping the upcoming season start in early May. It's routine, hyperlocal coverage, much like the Cherokee Scout articles. Not enough for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To add: the two Citizen-Times articles mentioned are a four-sentence press release announcing an honor and a YOUNGATH-failing interview, both by the same author. JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How does what not make sense? A routine announcement does not contribute to GNG and an interview when she was in high school with little independent commentary in a local newspaper does not contribute to GNG either. They're also both by the same reporter so they wouldn't be separate sources regardless. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the article has a byline in a newspaper with an editorial staff, by definition it's not a "press release", even if the journalist used facts that originated from a "press release". You seem to throw around terms like "press release" and "routine announcement" a lot without really understanding journalism basics. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with sports reporting? I've sent plenty of these kinds of releases to local news on behalf of teams. None of that info is coming from the journalist's own investigation. Material derived entirely from press releases is treated as intellectually non-independent from the press release. That source is exactly the type of routine announcement dismissed in hundreds of other AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The role of a journalist or editor writing for a reliable news source is to vet the facts. If they put their name in the byline, in most mainstream American newspapers, it means they are vouching for the accuracy of the facts they are reporting; and if there are any errors, they have an ethical responsibility to correct them. (Anyway yes, thanks for correcting your terminology there about "derived from" rather than "press release".) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Frank Anchor... Idk why this article was nominated again... has good sources like and  and the Cherokee Scout articles... Clearly most significant US Virign Islands women's player... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above and at last AFD which show notability. GiantSnowman 09:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Have added more sources to the article from The Virgin Islands Daily News and some important missing details, like the fact that she was team captain of the USVI women's team. There is even a newspaper article that focuses in-depth on her middle school tackle football career. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (albeit a bit weak), per the sources presented here and at the prior AfD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep [copying the argument I made in the first AFD, which still applies in full]. Keep per the sources provided by other users giving the subject enough coverage to pass GNG. The sources provided by BennyOnTheLoose [in the first AFD] are acceptable and can not be discounted solely because they are from a smaller publications. The WLOS source above is certainly GNG approved as well. And others are questionable but there is enough overall independent significant coverage for this article to be kept. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Actualcpscm and JoelleJay that the available sources are not significant coverage of Canizio. The "get to know" WLOS article covers her directly, but not in-depth, and the collegiate soccer coverage is generally derived from the subject or her college, and isn't sustained or in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2023 (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.