Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife


 * 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. Opinion is divided between those who support deletion because the sources are deemed insufficient, and those who support keeping because they consider the sourcing sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. That's a matter of judgment which I can't second-guess as closer (and shouldn't even if I knew something or indeed cared about football), so we're left with no consensus and a "keep" by default. There's also discussion about issues of systemic bias and about the subject's league's importance or professionalism. These parts of the discussion also do not help us to arrive at a consensus. Nonetheless, I'm of the view that our deletion policy's principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" should be taken into account particularly when, as here, we are faced with potential issues of systemic bias, which confirms the "no consensus keep" outcome.  Sandstein  12:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Jenna Fife

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scottish League is not fully professional and she has not made an international appearance, therefore she fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG with no ind. coverage going in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. The WP:FPL essay is perpetually "incomplete" as noted at the top of the page and largely irrelevant to women's leagues around the world. SWPL is the top-division women's league in Scotland. Adequate references provided. Hmlarson (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – WP:FPL is indeed very very incomplete. And not really well defined. This would bytheway put almost all international women's league players up for deletion. Since almost every league in women's football has only one or two really professional teams. This would mean a hugh disparity between men's and women's leagues. Which would mean Wikipedia is actively against women's sports, since in general women's sports (some debate incorrectly) receive less money (and with that less professionalism). My advise is to decide relevance on status of the league, top divisions of countries. Do note that Jenna Fife did play as a youth international (talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Top division of women's football in Scotland is not fully-professional, nor has she won a full international cap yet, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Note to closer – playing in a top division is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY – the league played in has to be fully-professional, so despite the incorrect claims above (which are disappointing to see despite the editor in question being fully aware of this), WP:FPL is relevant here. Note these recent AfDs on male players who played in the top division in Lithuania, Ireland and Cambodia respectively, which are also not fully-professional. Number   5  7  09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as she has not played in a full international or in a fully professional league. This article on STV News goes into some detail about the status of Glasgow City, the dominant club in the Scottish league (the subject plays for Hibernian, one of the clubs that tries to challenge Glasgow City). It is not discriminatory as there are opportunities for highly-talented Scottish players to play professionally in other countries (England, Sweden, USA, Germany), which many of them have taken. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep here a list I created some months ago that shows the top European teams based on the Elo Rating system (used for the FIFA ranking as well): . Calculation method here: []. You can see the top teams are from the following leagues in Europe are (in order of importance): France 1, Germany 1, Sweden 1, England 1, Russia 1, Switzerland 1, Spain 1, Poland 1, Italy 1, Scotland 1, Netherlands 1, Serbia 1, Denmark 1. And maybe at lower level Austria 1, Czech Republic 1, Hungary 1, Turkey 1, Belarus 1, Kazakhstan 1, Belgium 1, Bosnia 1, Romania 1, Iceland 1, Cyprus 1 (all with teams in the top 100). Calling the Dutch Vrouwen Eredivisie professional and the Scottish league not is very strange. Why is sports measured on money in stead of merit? Again that creates automatically more men sports articles than women sports articles, which sounds very biased (talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice article TeeVeeed (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR. If the Scottish league rates relatively high due to results in European competition, those will be largely (if not entirely) based on Glasgow City (who Jenna Fife doesn't play for). They have won the Scottish league for the last several years and have been the Scottish representative in European competition for all of that period. Calling the Scottish league "not professional" is pretty straightforward – it's based on the fact that the players are not paid to play. You ignore the fact that there are ways of this player (and others) becoming notable – they could play a full international or they could join a professional club. She hasn't done either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that having an article on Wikipedia is primarily linked to notability. In football terms, notability is strongly linked to professional status; with the exception of a few clubs funded by sponsors, most clubs can only turn professional if they have sufficient numbers of people coming to watch them. Implcitily, this means more people will be aware of professional players are they play in front of larger crowds. Women's football is less popular as a spectator sport than men's football, and as a result, its players are less notable. And before the usual gender bias accusations start flying around, I am interested in women's football, have written several articles on it and even attended the 2011 World Cup – however, I recognise that women's football (like non-League football, which I also follow) is less notable. Number   5  7  13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all the list shows Hibernian on position No. 45 of Europe. I would say at least the top 100 clubs are relevant for a sport that is played by millions of ladies in Europe. Furthermore Hibernian qualified for the UEFA Women's Champions League next season (is that not a reason to collect the squad information) – so they are not that unrelevant. The Vrouwen Eredivisie is scored as professional league, I'm close to an ex-player, I can tell you it's not professional from a money point of view just like in Scotland (maybe with Ajax and Twente for some players as a semi-pro option). Those leagues are interchangeable in money. But in merit the Scottish league has simply done better. By only taking the national team caps as relevant. You are making a Moldovan cap more important than a Scottish SWPL player (while the latter is more relevant). In my opinion you should pick the 30 top leagues of the world and do those first (i'm very much willing to help). Scotland should be part of that. Lets agree on such a list – that is more based on merit, that would make me happy. Are you as well starting delete all the hugh works that people for instance did on profiles of the W.League in Australia ? The last argument to not delete would be that it would demotivate me after all things I have added (but I understand in the ruthlessly factual Wikipedia world that is probably no argument :) NEW --> I see now all Glasgow City players are also under suspicion by Jmorrison230582 – so much of them will also be deleted. This is for the team that was in the quarter final of Europe some years ago. On the gender bias, I'm a man, so I'm not naturally biased to be biased (that is biased in your definition). What is clear is that we are not reporting on a sport like "Tiddly Winks". This is women's football, probably in the top 5 of most played women's sports, with millions of players. And we fail to even be able to cover one of the top 10 leagues in Europe with player profiles. Sorry for the long story, but something in me states I really have to disagree with this talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think your idea is a non-starter. Choosing X number of leagues to allow player articles is WP:OR at its worst, not to mention a logistical nightmare as the rankings change. If you want to change the guideline, the place to start a conversation is at WT:FOOTY, then take it to the sports guideline talk page if there is consensus. As it stands, I hope you accept that this player fails our notability guidelines. Number   5  7  15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I just added a few more references from Sky Sports, BBC, The Herald, and the Edinburgh Reporter to re-inforce WP:GNG. There's more out there if anyone is willing to contribute to the article rather than spending their time in another deletion discussion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept because I have no other choice. But I will stop using Wikipedia. I was a one day enthusiastic about Wikipedia's capabilities of neutral coverage of the women's game. But I now found out that people are more focussed on getting rid of new contributions than on trying to help get women's football on in a quality matter. YOU WON (hope you are happy with it) ! BUT I'M GONE ! Your WP:OR is simply untrue, since I only added some start-up sources. You just don't know which sources in women's football are the solid ones. Further the whole 'professional league' discussion is a shambles. It's trying to scientifically find a frame to exclude women's football, which makes no sense to anyone that knows about women's football more deeply. Ciao !! talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are often frustrating – but I'd encourage you to keep contributing. Your contributions are appreciated – despite what some might want you to believe. This particular discussion isn't over and nobody has "won." I'd be happy to explain more if you'd like, leave me a message via my Talk page if you're interested. Hmlarson (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) No, it's framed to exclude non-notable football. The fact that many women's football subjects fall into this is reflective of the fact that there is less interest in women's football compared to men's – for instance, in England the women's top division has an average attendance closest that of the sixth level of the men's pyramid (i.e. two levels lower than where we have the cut-off point for male player notability). Wikipedia reflects reality, and is not here to WP:Right great wrongs – this is neutrality. Number   5  7  16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion will always be... your opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what that's meant to mean, but the differential between men's and women's football referred to above in terms of public interest is a fact. Number   5  7  18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The fundamental point here is that this player is someone, regardless of gender, who has played a mere handful of times for her club and only at junior level internationally. It seems from the article that she may well play senior international football at some point as she has already been part of a training squad, but that is some way off. The claims of GNG noted above are erroneous. All that has been provided in the article are routine match reports which discuss team performance rather than the player specifically and other articles where the subject is only of tangential interest. For editors interested in what GNG-meeting sources look like with specific reference to a female footballer who does not meet NFOOTY, they need look no further than this AfD, closed only a few days ago which contains several references to dedicated, lengthy articles on the player in question. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Women's football is not in the same position as men's, it doesn't get the same level of media or popular coverage, and its "stars" are not notable (unfortunately). GiantSnowman 17:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly that notion is more important to some editors than Wikipedia policy. Good to note. 12 Hmlarson (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Women's football is of a broadly similar status to men's football in a few countries, particularly the USA, but this is not true of Scotland. The matches of the national team are fairly well covered by the main outlets (some games are televised on BBC Alba), so the international players (many of whom play professionally elsewhere) are reasonably well known. At club level, you get a weekly roundup of matches on the BBC Sport site (eg last weekend) and very little coverage of individual players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To give further context, the Scotland women's team played at home tonight in a competitive international match (UEFA Euro 2017 qualifying). Pretty important match as the team may qualify for a tournament for the first time ever (the men haven't qualified for nearly 20 years either). Attendance? 1,300. Rightly or wrongly, there simply isn't the level of interest or coverage in women's football in Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unfortunately I can't see anything that indicates this person should have an article on Wikipedia. No third-party non-trivial coverage of the subject seems to exist. Even in specialist publications like Women's Soccer Scene and She Kicks I can't find anything other than her name listed in line-ups or passing mentions in match reports. I agree, as mentioned by Funafuti1978, that Wikipedia mirrors the general media's apathy towards women's football, and therefore has a gender bias in football articles, but independent reliable sources are needed for biographies of living persons, and if they don't exist neither can the article. @Funafuti1978 don't lose heart, as Hmlarson says, your contributions are greatly appreciated. Women's football coverage on Wikipedia is weak in places, and any help with improving that is always welcome, it just needs to be focused in the right area. I'm more than happy to help if you need any pointers, just leave a message on my talk page. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 13:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all the fact that only men are discussing this, shows that Wikipedia, football and debate in general is still a men's world (sorry to bring the gender comment again – eventhough I am a man). Second of all it looks like discussing is more important here than making Wikipedia a bigger success. We are not talking about low level amateur players wanting to be covered on Wikipedia here, we are talking about top division players from one of the worlds top 25 women's soccer countries (FIFA Ranking / EWCR Ranking): Scotland. In my opinion players from the following top divisions should be covered:

North America: USA – NWSL (easy)

Asia: Japan – Nadeshiko League (doable) Korea Republic – WK League (doable) Australia – W.League (easy) China – Chinese Women's National League (tricky)

South America:

Brazil – Campeonato Brasileiro (easy) Chile – Primera Division (tricky) Colombia – Colombian League (tricky)

Europe:

Germany – Frauen Bundesliga (easy) France – Femeinine Division 1 (easy) England – WSL 1 (easy) Sweden – Damallsvenskan (easy) Norway – Toppserien (easy) Netherlands – Vrouwen Eredivisie (doable) Italy – Serie A (doable) Spain – Primera Division (doable) Denmark – Elitedivisionen (tricky) Switzerland – Nationalliga A (easy) Iceland – Urvalsdeild (easy) Scotland – SWPL (tricky) Russia – Supreme Division (doable) Ukraine – Premier League (easy) Austria – Frauenliga (easy) Poland – Ekstraliga (doable) Serbia – Prva Zvenska (tricky)

Players having at least one appearance in those competitions are mostly far better players than national team players from Vietnam, Jordan, Bulgaria, Faroe Islands, Haiti, Venezuela or Zambia who are featured and allowed to be covered on Wikipedia. What is unclear is that the money above merit argument for leagues is not there for national teams. Are those national teams all fully professional? Mostly they are absolutely not. Are they well covered in their countries, mostly absolutely not. So Wikipedia is favouring the real unprofessional above the semi professional. Then another thing, in the Vrouwen Eredivisie (a leagues someone decided to be professional on Wikipedia – which it is not – can someone finally explain why SWPl is an issue and Vrouwen Eredivisie not?) there are women teams that train more than their professional men counter parts. Which means the ladies loose more time on their sports while combining it with studies, while the men earn more for less work. Professionalism isn't only related to money – it's also related to the effort you make to reach your goal. It is quite clearly the men in this discussion have never even been close to women's football, than they would have known what time the ladies in these top divisions invest to reach the top. Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best not to derail this specific AfD with a wider discussion on female football notability, that would be better at WT:FOOTY or WT:FPL, but I think you are focussing far too much on the subject specific guideline. You need to consider two points: firstly that the reason NFOOTY at least sort of works is that it acknowledges international footballers as being players, regardless of gender who have played at the highest possible level. Secondly, and this is the key thing, NFOOTY is always superceded by GNG. If an individual, regardless of gender is not receiving significant coverage specifically about them then it doesn't matter what level anyone perceives them to play at, the lack of coverage means they are not notable. The opposite is also therefore true by definition. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What I agree with is that there needs to be a framework. I also understand the current framework works well for men's football – since if you guys say it does I believe so (all though some in the list are a bit arbitrary – most look right). But it is simply sure it does not work for women's football for all the above reasons – since only 1 league would really fit that model (which is NWSL – probably the only fully 'money-wise' professional league in women's football). But in what women need to do for it – there are far more professional leagues. And in strength it could be that on some days clubs in Bundesliga, Damallsvenskan, Feminine 1 would simply beat NWSL clubs (who are professional). So in my opinion the only measurement is merit and results. I picked a combinaton of the leagues from the top 25 teams on the FIFA Ranking (that have a organized league pyramid) and the highest performing leagues in the continents that have a club competition (Copa Libertadores Feminino and UEFA Women's Champions League – based on EWCR). That should be good enough to cover the world of women's football in a proper way. If we would have a sensible rule I would have defended it with you, but the current rule qualifies only 1 league (NWSL). And next to that everybody is breaking the rule online – see Vrouwen Eredivisie profiles, W. League, Bundesliga profiles etc. Which is the best proof the rule does not work. Or you need to do a hugh clean-up operation. Then on your second point, the amount of articles about players. I think that is not the biggest problem, I just did not do a full research on those players yet. Women's football at a good level is well covered in regional and country-wide newspapers – but not in all countries those newspapers have good online sources. Furthermore UEFA, FIFA, FAs, official club websites should be trustworthy sources. Funafuti1978 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete reluctantly. Wikipedia goes on reliable sources, and unfortunately those reliable sources don't give much coverage to women's football- that's a problem with the coverage, and not with Wikipedia being biased. If people want to debate the guidelines, then that should be done at the appropriate venue, for example WT:NSPORTS or WT:FOOTY. However, we should be applying the guidelines at the moment, which say that she doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, and I don't believe she passes WP:GNG either. I also don't agree with the logic of "she plays in a country's top league, and is therefore notable"- it's simply too broad. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop the discussion. Delete the thing. You already have hurt too much. You have made it again.


 * Keep: This is most certainly part of a wider discussion on female football notability.  Once again, Wikipedia erases women as irrelevant and their accomplishments less notable.  It's a circular argument; women are not notable because there s not a lot of coverage, there is not a lot of coverage because women are not notable.  Time to stop this nonsense.  Within women's soccer, of the individual is highly ranked, she's notable. End of story.   Montanabw (talk)  04:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that playing in a top division makes you notable is not credible, as it would mean players in the top division in countries like Andorra or San Marino are notable. We have deleted probably hundreds of articles on male players from the League of Ireland Premier Division (the top level league in Ireland) because the league is not fully-professional (one is in the examples of AfDs I gave above) – this is not something focussed on getting rid of articles on female players. Number   5  7  12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Highly ranked and therefore notable. VanEman (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Being highly ranked does not make someone notable if the league or sport they play does not confer notability on its players. This is the whole point of the WP:NFOOTY guideline (otherwise we end up with tonnes of articles on semi-professional and amateur players). Number   5  7  18:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If Number 57 wants to keep treating a "guideline" as a hard and fast rule and death sentence, why bother going through the exercise of having experienced editors like us use our good judgment as we look at these articles?VanEman (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of a guideline is to show what community consensus on notability is – and that is that players that play semi-professional football are not notable. Do you have a guideline or policy-based reason for your judgement? Number   5  7  18:51, 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) 20:37, 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 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  20:51, 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) 21:06, 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  21:09, 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) 21:45, 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  21:49, 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) 22:01, 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  22:06, 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  22:16, 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  22:31, 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)


 * Delete – systemic bias is, as its name suggests, systemic. The SWPL is not a professional league, and otherwise there is not enough coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. It's not a problem of "misogyny"; Wikipedia treats players from both genders equally in that only players in fully professional leagues are kept regardless of gender, and Wikipedia cannot WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. SST flyer 11:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NFOOTBALL says Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. Her team is part of the Scottish Women's Premier League, so she is notable. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Scottish Women's Premier League is not a fully professional league. SST flyer 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See debate above. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment To everyone that is voting Keep because she plays in a top-tier league, all you have to do is provide a citation from a reliable (and fairly recent) source that confirms that the SWPL is fully professional. If nobody provides ones, than this article will be treated like any other footballer who only has appearances in a non-professional league (men or woman) and will be deleted. A simple citation, and we can add the SWPL to WP:FPL. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage of career among multiple types of sources goes back as far as 2012 for this notable individual. — Cirt (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of coverage can be found for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of semi-pro and amateur footballers (I estimate that there are probably around 10,000 semi-pro players in England alone); as an example, I created an article on a player who plays for the club I support (at the eighth level of men's football). Whilst he's one of my favourite players, I would not say he is a notable footballer in the wider scheme of things. Number   5  7  14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why did you create the page for him ? — Cirt (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I created (it in my userspace I should note) to try and illustrate the fact that it's quite easy to find enough material on non-notable footballers to create a well-referenced article. Number   5  7  14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, you created a page with information about a living person, in your userpace, with no intention of using it in Wikipedia article mainspace ever ? — Cirt (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it confusing? I said I was just doing it as an example. Number   5  7  14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:POINT to me. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how having an article in my userspace for illustrative purposes is being disruptive. I was hoping you might actually consider my substantive point about career coverage. Number   5  7  14:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So how long will you keep the page about that person ? — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess until this debate has ended. Can you actually respond to the point raised though? Number   5  7  14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And what if other people on the Internet come and read your page and are confused and don't know you only created it for the sole reason of illustrating a POINT in a deletion debate? That sure smacks of WP:POINT, at least to me. — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to assume that you are studiously refusing to respond to the question raised because you're unable to do so in a way that would support the retention of the Jenna Fife article, which I guess illustrates the point perfectly. Seeing as it's served it's purpose, I'll delete it now, but the closing admin is welcome to have look at the history if they wish. Number   5  7  15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your use of "point" betrays you. Thank you for saying you'll request the page be deleted. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any argument made in a debate is a "point"; are Nfitz and Fenix down being disruptive because they have referred to points? It's disappointing to see you resorting to that level of wikilawyering. Number   5  7  15:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one that created a page about a person purely to make a point at a deletion debate. — Cirt (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And it would seem the illustration served its purpose as intended, so I'm not sure how it was disruptive; the article was written as if it were a normal football biography, so even if someone had stumbled across it, there wasn't anything there that was problematic. Number   5  7  15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's problematic to create a biography page that you never intend to add to the encyclopedia. But only to use as a point in a deletion debate. — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, if you'll pardon the pun. Number   5  7  15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the future, please do not add biography pages on Wikipedia purely to make a point. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll do whatever I feel is necessary and non-disruptive to illustrate my argument in debates. Number   5  7  15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not create a WP:BLP only to make a WP:POINT in a WP:AFD again. That is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:POINT, and WP:AFD. It is disruptive and a violation of multiple site policies. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't believe it is a violation of any of those policies. Number   5  7  15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a helpful example, and I don't think it violated any project policy, certainly not BLP or POINT. I have no idea why Cirt decided to play WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it, but it proved your point. Rebb  ing  04:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rebbing. The issue actually ended up at the BLP noticeboard where everyone agreed it wasn't a problem. Number   5  7  07:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Glad to hear a definitive answer, I guess.  Rebb  ing  08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd have to say I also strongly agree with statements by and, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to pass NFOOTY and I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable third parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep If SWPL is the top women's league in Scotland, whether it's fully professional or not, then it's WP:NFOOTY that needs fixing, not this article. Professionalism might be a guide to the notability of leagues generally, but it's not a defining factor in sport (or else the olympics will be in trouble) and it's not working as a guide here, for women's football in Scotland. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Olympics isn't in trouble because Olympians are representing their country. This rule is also applied to footballers (male or female) via WP:NFOOTY – i.e. all international footballers are notable. The question is the notability of players who are not internationals. If we went down the top division route, it would open Wikipedia up to tens of thousands of articles on players who played in the top division in countries where football is not popular enough to make it as a spectator sport. Number   5  7  16:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per Number 57. You're right. I hate football anyway. Let's delete as much as possible – works for me. WP is oversupplied with articles on women too, so that's a double result. Thankyou for your guidance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Starting to look like WP:BADGERING of many of the "Keep" commenters, over and over again, with endless ceaseless replying to them, which may unfortunately have the impact of wearing people down or at least being a disruptive annoyance and waste of community patience. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to query the comments of editors whose !votes do not appear to be based on the guidelines; it just happens that there are quite a lot in this debate (as far as I can see, not a single keep !voter has cited a guideline or policy (apart from one mention of WP:ATD), which I hope is taken into account by the closing admin). Number   5  7  16:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has twenty-nine (29) replies in this debate. Apparently it is a very important issue to this person to reply to all these other comments on this AFD over and over again. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Related AFD: see also related afd at Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay. — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I've done a bit of research as part of a Quality improvment effort for this article. Please compare version after research and quality improvement efforts — to prior version. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – I think @User:Funafuti1978 hit the nail on the head with "trying to scientifically find a frame to exclude women's football". Especially when we consider that the largely semi-pro Scottish (men's) second tier gets a free pass. As well as articles for male amateur players like Andrew Leach, where the only "coverage" is listings in obscure stat-compendiums not available to the general public. Talk about double standards! This is all underscored, as others have said, by some ugly WP:BADGERING which is certainly misogynistic at times. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We have notability standards that this person doesn't meet. It's unfortunate that coverage of Women's football isn't the same as Men's football coverage in sources but that doesn't mean we bend notability rules ("Men's football" is really a misnomer as Premier League allows women to compete, as does MLB, NFL, etc, which is not the same as Olympic rules where there are clearly Men's and Women's sports).  If this were a badminton player, they would join the ranks of both Men's and Women's badminton notability as the sport doesn't generate coverage.  And if it were Tennis, the notability standard generates about equal coverage of Men and Women Singles professional tennis players that we don't dip into the lower rankings (note that doubles players don't get near the coverage, regardless of gender).  Framing this as a gender issue misses the point that it's about notable footballers as discussed in reliable sources and there is no gender requirement.  If she were a "Scottish League semi-pro tennis player" there would be no discussion as it's an obvious "delete."  --DHeyward (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: More quality improvement effort to the article: Please see this updated version of the article after further amount of research. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep GNG clearly matters in this case – the revision that Cirt points at clearly has enough significant research to surpass the basic requirements for notability. Sadads (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, much appreciated ! — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing GNG and NFOOTY. The coverage referenced in the article and available online is more routine than significant.


 * I'm unhappy voting to send a decently-written, verifiable woman's biography to the dustbin when we have so few, but external bias is not a valid retention criteria. In my view, it would be both unfair and unwise to keep a biography of a woman when a comparable biography about a man would likely be deleted. Perhaps our notability criteria are too strict: I think it would be to the Project's advantage to retain interesting, credibly-sourced, unbiased articles such as this even when their subjects aren't notable. But this is not the place for that discussion.


 * However this closes, I'd like to say that I salute 's efforts in expanding the article. Rebb  ing  08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments about my quality improvement efforts to the page. — Cirt (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the football project need to work harder to be more inclusive of such bios. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The furore surrounding this has prompted me to write an essay. Comment or additional questions welcome. Cheers, Number   5  7  17:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per GNG and using IAR for NFOOTBALL. This isn't a matter of righting wrongs. Cirt's excellent contributions to the article demonstrate that Jenna Fife has significant coverage in reliable sources, thus proving her notability to have an encyclopedic article (as to whether that notability is "high" or "low" is a completely different discussion). What needs to be fixed here is the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline; this case demonstrates that it has shortcomings. The fact that players from top flight leagues in countries like Andorra are also being removed because they don't meet the NFOOTBALL notability guideline is another example of the guideline's faults. There should at least be room for case-by-case analyses of notability.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - When it comes to women's football (and women's sports in general), they receive woefully inadequate compensation and coverage compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, there is an inherent lack of fully-professional women's football leagues. Because of this, we have to use common sense and not blindly follow WP:NFOOTY. I have reviewed the whole of Fife's coverage and have come to the conclusion that she meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom. Fails GNG and definitely fails NFOOTY. I agree that the SWPL is not a fully-professional league. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 05:57, 9 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.