Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Voll


 * 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. Whilst a detailed analysis was performed on the sources presented by one editor to suggest the individual does not meet GNG, there seems clear consensus that the sources are sufficient. Fenix down (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte Voll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NFOOTY Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number   5  7  13:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in Germany. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep She plays in a top tier league (Frauen-Bundesliga). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silver  seren C 05:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Frauen-Bundesliga is included at the list of leagues, but is in the list of top-tier leagues that are not fully-professional, so she does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Number   5  7  13:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in online French- or German-language sources. All of the online coverage is routine (database entries, transfer announcements, match reports), so I can't see how this article would satisfy the GNG. Perhaps if Voll features regularly for Sand, things could change but for now its WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: On the basis of substantial coverage in German and French newspapers, some of which are included as references, the article certainly qualifies for general notability. You need to do searches with the French and German versions of Google to find all these, not just with the English version. It looks to me as if this and several similar articles about women footballers are being put up for deletion unfairly.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I searched for online coverage in French- and German-language media, and found very little that I would consider "substantial." I added the most substantial thing I found (from Stadtanzeiger Ortenau) to the article, but online coverage Voll is almost entirely routine. I don't see why it's unfair to invoke the GNG here. Jogurney (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The keep vote language is very weak with little in the way of genuine sourcing provided. Additional time is allowed to present these, but without I'll close as delete. Simply stating an individual meets GNG is not enough.
 * Weak keep - only has a few top level appearances and - since WP:NFOOTY is palpable nonsense - we must look at WP:GNG. I can see both sides but there is evidence of non-routine coverage. I came down on the side of keep, but with this one I can accept that others may like to see a bit more coverage before they commit themselves. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm going to give keep voters one more chance to discuss specific sources. There's barely anything here pointing to GNG-satisfying sources. If people can't do this, then I will close as delete.
 * Keep Yes, she plays in the Frauen-Bundesliga which doesn't pass FPL, but just by doing a quick Google search, it obviously passes GNG. It's so cringe seeing everyone say "iT dOeSnT pAsS fPl sO iT dOeSnT pAsS gNg." when GNG takes precedence over FPL. FPL is only used when the player has had little coverage but played in a fully professional league. Literally 75% of the stubs for English, French and Brazilian footballers barely even pass FPL, but would never even pass GNG. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All I could find was transfer news and brief mentions which don't count for GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Since a simple Google is apparently too hard for some people, here are many, many sources., , , , , , , , , , , and many many many more if anyone bothers to do a simple Google. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's my analysis of 's provided sources. If anyone else has any that could count towards GNG, please feel free to add to the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:11, April 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * So basically what you're saying is profiles of her don't count because they quote her (as profiles generally do), profiles of other players that mention her don't count because they're not profiles of her, and articles that are primarily about her and don't quote her don't count because they're too short? That makes no sense. Articles about subjects frequently quote them, that's perfectly normal, they often also quote people connected to the person they're about, which is also perfectly normal, and if the entire article is only a few paragraphs, it's impossible for it to spend more than a few paragraphs discussing the subject. These sources satisfy GNG, easily. Smartyllama (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think I said that. GNG requires coverage to be significant, addressing the subject "directly and in detail". Do you believe does so? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are cherry picking sources. Most of those meet GNG, maybe a couple don't but there's more than enough. Also I was responding to the table above but I have no idea if you posted it because it's unsigned, my apologies for the confusion if it wasn't you. Smartyllama (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I did forget to sign, it should be fixed now :). Is there a particular source in the table you think meets GNG? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sources primarily about the subject meet GNG, even if they include quotes from her or people who are connected to her, as long as the sources themselves are independent (i.e. not a team website or something like that.) It is extremely common to include quotes from people in articles, and indeed it would be hard to find an article in a reliable source that didn't have any quotes, so I have no idea what your issue is there. This applies no matter how long or short the article is, though it probably wouldn't apply to something as short as a tweet, even if it were from a reliable source. This gets the following sources past GNG: #1, probably #2, definitely #4, #5, #9, #10, and #11. #3, #6, and #7 are more edge cases, and as you correctly pointed out, #4 and #8 are the same. But still, that's at least six and possibly seven sources. That's more than enough. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that there's nothing wrong with quoting a subject of the article per se, but, e.g., an "article" that is only a quote from the subject would not be independent (as GNG) requires. Taking #5 (which you said "definitely" passed GNG) as an example, I don't see how it addresses Voll "in detail". #5 is 6 sentences long (plus a twitter embed), and Voll is discussed in only 2 of those sentences. In my view, that is not in enough detail to for the source to count towards GNG. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the point of the "definitely" wasn't to indicate that that source was particularly strong compared to the others, but to make it clear that the "probably" only applied to #2 and not what came after it. Sorry if that was unclear. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC) > Mevermind, that ambiguity would only apply to #4, not to #5, which you referenced. Smartyllama (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I reached the same conclusion as Mdaniels5757 when I reviewed online coverage. I thought the Stadtanzeiger Ortenau article was borderline significant coverage, but it's a regional newspaper with pretty insignificant circulation, so I'd need to see more to satisfy the GNG, and the vavel.com article was the next closest, but it was entirely routine. Jogurney (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as this person passes WP:GNG. I don't know what other people count as significant coverage, but it is pretty clear to me that two paragraphs satisfies it easily. Just because an article contains a quoted paragraph does not mean it cannot be significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- cleary meets GNG going through the sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment so people are keep voting keep for GNG, despite seeing a perfect column of red X's in the table above. Oh well. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That table is one person's opinion. Others are allowed to disagree on whether certain sources satisfy GNG. I don't understand the point of this comment. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Paragraphs and profiles are quite adequate to demonstrate notability when we have numerous male footballers allowed stubs with far less. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. Comments about "routine coverage" do not cut it in the face of the obvious discrimination female players are up against. Agathoclea (talk) 08:21, 9 April 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.