Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daila Tais-Borg


 * 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) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Daila Tais-Borg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS. There simply aren't any sources with significant attention of her, the best are one or two sources spending a full sentence on her in match reports (e.g. when she missed a penalty), the remainder of the very few sources are just statistics or unreliable sources.

(Note: I came across this article through the canvassing of David Eppstein at WP:WIR, after he inappropriately and rudely removed ProDs from many articles.) Fram (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reason I already gave at Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano. Her league is the top league in her country. Insisting that only a "fully professional" league should count, whatever that is supposed to mean, imposes a biased double standard in which nothing a women does is considered good enough, while men are still considered notable by playing only one professional game. That standard is bigoted and wrong. We should either keep this article as someone who reached the highest available pinnacle of her sport, or get rid of NSPORT and consider all athletes properly under GNG on an individual basis, not starting by nominating only womens-league athletes. As for "canvassing": I deliberately avoided naming the AfD involved, and removing prods is fully appropriate and allowed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Agree with David Eppstein's points. However, I would label it a stub and allow other Wiki editors to continue to edit the piece. - Juju (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The highest league of Australia is far from the pinnacle of women's soccer. Women's professional soccer and international soccer exist. As far as the men go, there is at least 50 AFDs where men who have played a few games got their article deleted, see this recent AFD with lots of relevant links. The notion that "only womens-league athletes" are nominated is totally flawed. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - NFOOTY/NSPORTS has very little relevance to female footballers so I'd rather look at GNG. I agree with Fram in that there just don't appear to be sources showing WP:SIGCOV. Since she appears to have retired, I can't see any strong chance that she will be notable in future, so I don't think sending to draft space is an option either. Spiderone  17:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet our already absurdly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 4 November 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.