Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Beutel


 * 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtney Beutel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG, in sum not meeting any Wikipedia guidelines. Mind that there are thousands of female footballers who actually do meet the criteria, but not this one. Geschichte (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - NFOOTBALL as it stands at the moment blatantly goes against broader efforts to have more articles about both women and people from non-wealthy western nations. It should be urgently reviewed to remove its inherant bias to (largely) white males. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - impressive goal scoring record; TWG calls her a goalscoring machine in one source but, sadly, I can find no in-depth coverage. I found this brief routine piece but nothing else of note. Will happily reconsider if other sources come to light Spiderone  22:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete totally fails notability guidelines for footballers. We do not need a more inclusive football notability guideline, we need to make it much, much, much more restrictive. Anyway, Wikipedia is meant to reflect reality and not write great wrongs. The issues that Mattingbgn objects to are a result of actual coverage. Although if he thinks a disproportionate number of football articles are on "white males" he has really not considered how many are clearly non-white. We have huge numbers of articles on football players from many countries in Africa. A few countries, like Benin and Cameroon, it is maybe distressing what a high percentage of the people from there we actually have articles on were football players, but football articles flood cover lots of people who were not white males, especially if we use "white" as it often is in the US to mean non-Hispanic white.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Articles need to be backed by reliable sources. The time for giving the 'benefit of the doubt' is over. The tolerance towards articles that aren't backed by reliable sources is why we get hoax articles and autobiographies slipping through... Spiderone  20:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If by "right great wrongs" you mean at least ensuring Wikipedia does not amplify the systemic bias already inherent towards women's sport and sport played in wealthy, western nations then yes - Wikipedia should right great wrongs. Males acting as gatekeepers at Wikipedia - keeping the women out - is not helpful to Wikipedia at all. YMMV -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion. Nothing to suggest she passes WP:GNG in the article. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2021 (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.