Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Gurr


 * 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn, no dissenting voices and consensus that sources in the article clearly indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Gurr

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was dePRODded by Nfitz with the reason Gurr "Looks to meet GNG" and citing this article which is a blatant copy and paste of this thefa.com article. Gurr fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed to due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG. I would say easily because there's an incredible of routine coverage of her (match reports and the like) as well, but women's football isn't covered as in depth, so had to dig to find the better articles (one of these is a match report but she's clearly covered.) Would be unfortunate if this is deleted, she's had a good and noted career.      SportingFlyer  T · C  16:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - references above show enough coverage for WP:GNG, except ref 2, which is about a different Charlotte. It would be harsh to fail this article on the basis of WP:NFOOTY as she has made several appearances for many top clubs on the women's side, even if they were not playing in FPLs at that exact time. Spiderone  16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to meet GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Theargus - Gurr scored twice, fortunately no one else did or they might have been interviewed, thesun isn't a RS, someone has to win the not notable awards of FA player of the round/goal of the week, the sportsvibe article is the same as the yahoo/fa ones and kentlive is a match report. A 16 year career and there's no in depth RS. Dougal18 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Argus article is clearly a feature story, the Kent Live is a match report that is written around her, there's more coverage of her with her long career as well. I haven't included the plethora of transfer announcements or routine coverage including BBC Match Reports that dates back throughout her entire career. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Argus is local coverage, Kent Live obviously leads on her because she scored four goals in the same way any match report in the world does when a player scores multiple times and the BBC site provides a whopping two hits. From 2009. All of it is routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw the nomination. I don't want to drag this out for another 6 days before it's closed as keep. Dougal18 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - clearly meEts GNG looking at SportingFlyer's sources. Nomination is misleading - I noted that there was a LOT of media coverage; unfortunately the example I chose was poor. Given how much media coverage there is, and that they have played for years on top professional teams in the UK, that are not quite fully-professional ... this nomination is an example of WP:BIAS and should be withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article meets GNG and it also needs some improvements. WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as passes GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2020 (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.