Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes


 * 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. Boy, this was a mess. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea, as the ensuing muddled debate exemplifies. The general consensus of the discussion is that Viramontes meets the bar of the GNG, making the discussion about meeting NFOOTY moot.  A  Train talk 09:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Brenda Viramontes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. GiantSnowman 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.


 * In anticipation of potential keep votes below, quoting the nutshell section of NSPORT (namely: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition) is not a suitable deletion reationale. The nutshell is merely a summary synthesis of various guidelines (which should be obvious from the vagueness of words such as "major"). The only relevant area of NSPORT for this discussion is NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. See also Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi and WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One more: WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep These articles are unrelated enough that nominating as a WP:MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Nominate them separately if you want. Smartyllama (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Per, , and , the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the difference between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. GiantSnowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that the NFOOTY authors didn't write those articles. To most people in everyday English, a league that has "some professional elements" but is not "fully-professional" is semi-professional, not professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). GiantSnowman 13:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. GiantSnowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes :) GiantSnowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

- not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". GiantSnowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A lot of lower-tier professional athletes have part-time jobs on top of their full-time ones. Minor league baseball is commonly regarded as professional baseball (though its athletes are not inherently notable per WP:NBASEBALL) but its athletes often take other jobs in the offseason to make a living. And I seem to recall a discussion on that talk page reaching explicit consensus that MiLB is professional, not semi-professional or anything else. But this AfD is really not the appropriate place to have this discussion, WT:FOOTY is. I suggest we move it over there. Smartyllama (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By all means do. GiantSnowman 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done so. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Smartyllama (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all none come even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Brenda Viramontes and Anette Vázquez, unbundle the other nominations please delete Zellyka Arce and Valeria Meza - It appears that Viramontes is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., Publimetro article, El Informador article, Non-routine mention in Vanguardia article - led club in goals during the 2017 Apertura tournament). There is plenty of routine coverage online as well, but I think there is enough online coverage to satisfy GNG based on my limited Google Translate skills. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - why do the rest need to be unbundled? They remain non-notable, do they not? Re-nominating them serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the time to review online sources to see if any of the other articles meet the GNG. I don't think it's appropriate to bundle them in a single AfD (as GNG compliance for each article must be determined independently). Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And none of them meet GNG, so what's the problem? GiantSnowman 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I checked for online coverage of Anette Vázquez, and it appears an article would satisfy the GNG (e.g., Publimetro article, ESPN MX article, and AS México article). I don't think Arce and Meza would satisfy the GNG based on a quick check of their online coverage, but I reserve the right to look further when I have more time. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Updating my !vote to cover the other 3 articles - I'm not finding sufficient coverage for the Arce or Meza articles to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: I detest multiple nominations unless there is clear connected reasoning to do so. Nominate seperately if there is deemed reasoning. I do see issues on more than one but not necessarily on all. Otr500 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * these are basic stub articles, all created by the same editor using the same template, about women who all play for the same soccer team (and all fail WP:NFOOTBALL). They are about as connected as you can get! GiantSnowman 11:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply: Most editors that are not involved in articles, and just weighing in on an AFD, unless really bored with nothing to do but research an AFD, would not know this so would have been a good reason to include this information in the nomination(s). There has been a slide for finding reasons to keep pseudo BLP's using speciality publications or other primary sources or just a head count over a !vote. The closer normally will not investigate the articles but weigh in on the rationale provided in these !votes, supposedly considering relevant policies and guidelines. I take the time to look at these, investigate to a minor extent, and !vote according to what I see as reliable sources. Trying to "slide 'em in" seems to be a popular thing because the below templates rational does not seem to matter. Consider instances of This page in a nutshell: Otr500 (talk)
 * WP:notability:


 * Notability (sports):


 * Notability (people):


 * Biographies of living persons:


 * Verifiability


 * All of these have the same thing in common in that sources determine notability as well as acceptable rationale for content yet somehow this tries to be wikilawyered. We then seperate reliable sources to exclude primary sources for notability and add depth if a BLP (or BLP related) is concerned. If a source is closely related to a subject (not independent of the subject) it cannot be used for notability. None of the above seem to matter when one or more editors, or a project, seem set on creating articles or making blue links out of all red links, that have been marked thus for article creation when the creation occurs, or speedy deletes would be more common. Expanding a parent article must not have the same prestige or possibly total article count so creating stubby stubs or pseudo BLPs seems preferencial to adding to an existing article to make it better. If a subject is not greatly sourced or even poorly sourced it might augment the parent article but it seems more fun (I guess) to argue stand-alone status.
 * If you close this as withdrawn and wish to nominate seperately you can ping me and I will give my honest opinion, according to policies and guidelines, as to notability on each or you can take your chances with the bundle. Otr500 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. Either find sources showing notability or don't. GiantSnowman 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply to the smart aleck (I perceive = asswipe) comments. I was in favor of helping: Never mind do not ping me (ever) as I will return the asshole (my perception) favor by not reading your ping. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to AGF (as your user page proudly boasts!) and CIVIL? GiantSnowman 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise. AGF is a two-way street not a convenient threat. Follow the rules. Hmlarson (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all apart from the problematic bulk nom, players that aren't independently notable can be redirected to their team. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Are they notable pr not? Also redirecting non-notable sports people to their team page is frowned upon due to transfers etc. and th redirect becoming repeatedly out-of-date/inaccurate. GiantSnowman 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see my points above)? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think WP:NFOOTBALL completely falls flat for women's football. Fortunately for Viramontes, she pretty clearly passes WP:GNG with interviews with SI and a full profile here   which aren't WP:MILL. I haven't reviewed the others nominated, but recommend a procedural keep for them without prejudice for renomination. SportingFlyer  talk  03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a procedural keep of the others? GiantSnowman 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they should all be judged on their own merits - Viramontes is clearly notable, the others may be as well. Per the multi AfD, An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. SportingFlyer  talk  20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: for Viramontes (Jogurney being entirely right in stating that NFOOTBALL's irrelevant if the subject can otherwise meet the GNG), neutral on the rest.   Ravenswing   11:15, 25 May 2018 (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.