Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay


 * 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. Both sides have made plausible arguments in this discussion. While the "keep" votes are more numerous, when reading the discussion I found the "delete" votes to have generally stronger arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies. We must remember that Polling is not a substitute for discussion; simply saying that this meets WP:GNG without explaining how is not a particular strong argument. Also, I am annoyed by the incivility in this discussion; Wikipedia has often been said to be a hostile place which turns away prospective female editors, and this discussion only serves to perpetuate this problem. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Brogan Hay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD with no reason given. Subject fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. This is irrelevant however, as there is no indication whatsoever that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage in third party sources for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG criteria clearly met. WP:NFOOTY and its perpetually incomplete WP:FPL essay (as noted clearly at the top of the page) is largely irrelevant to women's top-division leagues around the world. Adequate references provided for WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep unless a viable solution for the top-division of women's football has been resolved and the conclusion declares that women playing in the top-level league in their country still aren't notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the deliberately misleading claim above, WP:NFOOTY is entirely relevant here. The player does not play in a fully-professional league, so does not meet the criteria. I'm not sure what you mean by a "viable solution"; I would be extremely uncomfortable with a double standard that said women playing in non fully-professional leagues are notable but men are not.  Number   5  7  10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally think that's bias against women's sports, especially when they receive coverage in notable third party reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it bias? They are judged by the same criteria. The lack of professional women's leagues is because it is less popular as a spectator sport, meaning that the players themselves are less notable. If WSL players were deemed to be automatically notable and National League players not (despite playing in front of crowds almost twice the size), I would say that would be bias. Number   5  7  10:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a silly argument. Netball is less popular as a spectator sport.  As is dressage.  But that shouldn't mean we bias the coverage against those sports.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs some work, but definitely meets notability requirements. We should not be reinforcing Wikipedia's demonstrated systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no bias. Players are held to the same standards whether they are male or female. We also delete articles on male footballers in top divisions that are not fully professional (see these recent AfDs). Number   5  7  18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion that there's no bias, but that's just your opinion. Just because a "standard" is applied equally doesn't make it a good standard. VanEman (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a standard is applied equally, then by the very definition of the word, there is no bias... Number   5  7  18:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If admissions to the Ivy League is based on height and the minimum standard is applied equally--you have to be six feet tall---that doesn't mean there is no bias. The standard is not a good one, and inappropriately eliminates what I think are appropriate candidates. Same here. I would argue that notability as an athlete is a matter of subjectivity, not a single rule. VanEman (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the height argument is a straw man – this is not a rule than naturally excludes women – there is nothing to stop women's football leagues being fully-professional, except the relative lack of interest compared to men's football – and it is this relative difference that affects the relative notability levels. A better comparison would be the WP:Politician guideline – i.e. that all MPs in national parliament are automatically deemed notable. This rule means more articles on male politicians are deemed automatically notable than for female politicians, as in almost all countries, there are more male MPs than female. However, this does not mean the rule itself is biased, it is simply a reflection of real life. Number   5  7  19:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You sound just like Ray Moore on women and men in tennis. I hear that his position is open now, so why don't you call Larry Ellison and tell him you'd like to apply for the gig.VanEman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you feel you have to bring the debate down to that level. If professional status is not the best indicator of notability for footballers, what do you suggest is? The only realistic alternative I have heard that doesn't include separate rules for men's and women's footballers (which would be biased) is to allow articles on all players in top divisions – however, this has been rejected on numerous occasions as it would mean we have articles on footballers who play in the top divisions of countries like Andorra and the Faroe Islands. Number   5  7  19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree entirely that reliance on the list at WP:FPL is, and has been for a long time, nonsensical. And the only even remotely accurate alternative I can think of would be for a working group to go through every country in the world looking at players with varying ranges of appearances, seeing how many apps they needed in each league for most of them to meet WP:BIO, and drawing up a notable leagues list accordingly. And given the obvious systematic bias involved in availability of sources – in terms both of language and of ease of access – not to mention the unlikelihood of finding volunteers, I can't see that working. So we have to use WP:BIO. The sources currently in Ms Hay's article come nowhere near meeting the requirements of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I can't find anything to add to the article to get it closer to meeting those requirements. Namechecks, match reports, but very little of significance. If a page for a male under-age international were at AfD with a similar lack of non-trivial coverage, it'd have six or seven delete votes by now. If a page for a player in the not fully pro English National League or in the top-division but not fully pro League of Ireland were at AfD, it'd have to reach something approaching WP:GA standard before it'd be kept. The UK media doesn't cover women's football in any great detail, although it's improving. I'm not convinced how constructive it is to try to override WP:BIO for subjects that we think the media should be interested in but isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  09:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - ignoring the WP:NFOOTBALL aspect here (which even the keepers say she fails!), this article fails WP:GNG as well. Non-notable, sorry. GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm tired of the WP:BIAS and misogyny where we develop guidelines designed primarily by males to minimize the article for top female players compared to top male players. Plays in top division of football in Scotland. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, we delete numerous articles on male players in top divisions because they don't meet the criteria either. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the guideline was specifically designed to minimise the number of eligible female players? Also, it's a shame that we can't seem to get through a debate about a female footballer without accusations of misogyny, chauvinism etc; perhaps a new version of Godwin's law is required... Number   5  7  20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence is clear, simply from the much larger number of article for current male footballers compared to females. The guidelines that let this happen are misogynistic. It's 2016 - just because the UK is backwards, doesn't mean we should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are more articles on male players because there are more professional male players. The same is the case for politicians because there are more male politicians. Regardless of what year this is, this is reality. Also, please withdraw your personal attack. Number   5  7  21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made no personal attack - though I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age. There are many sports listed in WP:ATHLETE where we don't apply the "fully-professional" league rule, and allow for "professional" in other sports (such as Canadian and American football). If we are willing to have different rules for other types of football, then there's no reason we can't apply different rules for different genders. The concept of applying the same rules for female footballers as we do for male footballers is misogynistic - when we could choose to apply the rules for female footballers to be the same as American footballers. I don't think establishing the rules this way was in itself misogynistic - but failing to change it when the WP:BIAS is demonstrated, is misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You have accused editors of misogyny, and if you do not withdraw it, you will be reported at ANI. Applying the same rules to both genders is unbiased; having different rules would be biased. The fact is that fewer female footballers are notable because there is less interest in it as a spectator sport. This may reflect badly on society, but it is a fact. It would be grossly unfair to male footballers who play in semi-professional leagues to deny them an article when females in similar leagues are allowed them. Number   5  7  21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not accused any individual of misogyny; I'm not sure why you are distracting from the point. How do you justify that we can apply different rules to American Football, but can't apply those rules to Women's football. Yes, there is less interest in it as a spectators sport. But in other sports where there is less interest as a spectators sport, we only require that the league is profesional - not fully professional. That's where we are being misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are different sports. This is the same sport. ANI report to follow shortly, I will notify you on your talk page. Number   5  7  22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But with different genders. ANI report for what? I'm accusing us all of misogyny - myself included as I've gone along with this in the past. I've been just as much a misogynist on this as anyone. I've only just realised the implication, because we apply different standards for other male-dominated sports. I think you are misinterpreting my meaning here. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gender should not matter – notability of footballers is directly linked to interest in the sport. Number   5  7  22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course gender matters. You are saying that a sport such as american football where we accept that because of the smaller player base, that it doesn't have to be fully-professional, but reject the same for Women's football based simply on gender? We need to fix this - it is clearly and blatantly wrong, and is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I would say the bias is in the American Football guidelines. The size of the player base has no real impact on notability as far as I am aware. Number   5  7  22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That was simply an example, that I chose going down the list of sports - and it's the first sport listed. There's certainly others. Ice hockey, Basketball, Cycling, Equestrian for example. We could very easily choose to change Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. to men who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable; while women who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a professional league, will generally be regarded as notable to recognize the huge differences between the two sports. Nfitz (talk)
 * But what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable when a male counterpart is not? Number   5  7  11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's the highest level in the country, as in this case. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But, as demonstrated above, being the highest level in a country is not sufficient for male players either. Number   5  7  15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see that demonstrated and at any rate it really doesn't mean that much to me. I'm not arguing she passes FOOTY. "what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable"--I don't take "notable" as "notable per FOOTY", I take it as "notable". I'm arguing FOOTY should be tweaked. If you want to really improve Wikipedia, get the experts together (including the keepers in this discussion, minus me, since I know very little) and tweak the guidelines so they reflect, more honestly and with less of a focus on "professional", the actual practice of sports, including women's participation in it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was in Struway's comments, but if you need actual links to AfDs, see these recent ones – all male players in top divisions. Number   5  7  15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion she passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As earlier stated the system measures financial gain, not sports achievements. Professionalism is not only money, it's also how much you train, how the sport is organized. If a hugh sports like women's soccer ends up with just 1/2/3 leagues qualifying standards, than there has been an intellectual mistake.Funafuti1978 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. She seems to pass WP:GNG. SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her team has the reigning championship of Scottish Women's Premier League. WP:NFOOTBALL says Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. She is notable. — Maile  (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep top division sports players, clearly reach WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY is broken if it doesn't account for the variable emphasis and coverage of Women's sports.Sadads (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with . WP:FOOTY is broken. WP:GNG is clear. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: see also related AFD at Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons in the related article. She doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, which is the standard- it's not acceptable to use " I think WP:NFOOTY is stupid/wrong/biased" as a reason to keep this article. Some coverage, but I don't believe enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG is (just about) met. WP:NFOOTY and WP:FPL are an embarrassment to their project and not fit for purpose. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2016 (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.