Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddy Cusack


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maddy Cusack

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Don't be fooled by the refbombing - the articles do not cover Cusack in detail. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. Dougal18 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Don’t let this page get deleted 92.40.215.239 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the significant coverage from multiple major news sites is about her career, not just her death. As many other people have pointed out in this AfD, her career was as notable as many male footballers with WP articles. Lijil (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - tragic situation, but not a notable individual I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources. These are BBC, Sky Sports, Athletic, The Guardian, more than enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is false. 2A02:2F0E:813:B800:4C61:E719:3BF2:41DE (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the references were published upon her death, and don't state much more than her death and platitudes from those who knew her. She was not notable according to Wikipedia criteria.  Ira Leviton (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources should be reliable and independent from subject.
 * There is no requirement for them to be published before deaths. There are plenty of articles that exist only with sources that were published after death of the person. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment So all those news organisations are going to be ignored? What's the point of GNG if you don't want to use it? Toronto Star, San Diego Union Tribune, it's covered pretty world wide. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It applies to events, not persons. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was. It's almost inconceivable that they, or any other medium, will file further stories because other than the circumstance of her early passing, she was not a notable public figure. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was"
 * This doesn't work like that. We need coverage in reliable sources, we don't speculate on the reasons of why coverage exists. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 'We' might reflect that a newswire like AP being picked up by global media is not global fame, it's a newswire piece that is news because of her tragically untimely death. Absent that, AP would not have filed and editors from the Cincinatti Conveyancer wouldn't have the chance to pull the story from the wire to fill space. Whoever 'we' are... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The global fame is not necessary for having an article.
 * The person is covered in The Guardian, BBC, Athletic Kirill C1 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: More than enough coverage of her even before this year when she passed, easily at GNG. There is coverage of her death in Sweden and France among other things I found. Article can be expanded. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This, , , . She was pretty popular with the club and got attention from the media all over that part of England. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There is hardly any coverage specifically of Cusack in those sources. Dougal18 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with, those are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But these football matches are not run-of-the-mill events. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Football matches really are... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Oaktree b (talk). Plus there is plenty of mainstream coverage and she is the first female player to play 100 games for Sheffield United. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Oaktree b and Dwanyewest. Lots os sources and clearlu sifignicaint figure for her club. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Oaktree, Dwaynewest, and Das Osmnezz. Montgomery15 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notable coverage before her untimely death. If the sources are out there, then why hasn't the page even got basic things like here appearance stats or career overview? If the page is bought up to standard, then keep (or restore), but as stands, it's a delete.155.190.13.13 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There was coverage, even though this is not a must for the article to exist. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oaktree b. History6042 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There exists coverage in reliable sources
 * I would also like to point out that per guides for footballers, a game in a tier is usually enough. This footballer has more than 100 games for her club, and was the first one to do so. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * FOOTBALL has been scrapped. There has to be significant coverage in reliable sources. A few lines on her career combined with quotes doesn't cut it.Dougal18 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When?
 * It doesn't make sense not having a rule for the most popular sport while there are rules for less popular,and even amateur. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oaktree b. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: sufficient coverage 2A00:23EE:1078:426F:8C1F:ACA6:5AB6:6B36 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think there's enough coverage.


 * Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? SPAG checker (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Huge media coverage. Warrants a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A8B3:9901:3042:AAA3:63DD:28AF (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This vote at AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This vote at AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps she doesn't meet various WP policy but that probably just highlights male-female imbalance in Wikipedia, etc. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:4362:E524:CE7C:AF9 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If she doesn't meet Wikipedia policy WP:GNG, then the article shouldn't be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * She meets Wikipedia policy. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPAG checker (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think there's enough coverage.
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG, including SIGCOV. The coverage does not have to be from before the subject's death, indeed, we have many historical bios sourced largely from obituaries. The only issue would be if the coverage was only about her death (BLP1E) — which it isn't. It's post-mortem coverage about the life of someone notable: she was evidently quite a successful footballer, who also had a career in media and was popular locally. The article could be expanded, but the notability requirements are easily met. And as someone said, a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. It is sad that she had to die to get widespread SIGCOV, but we can take the sources for what they are. Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. How many male footballer AfDs have you participated in that you can make that claim? Because that statement is very inconsistent with what actually happens at AfD. This also is clearly a BIO1E issue: the non-trivial coverage is all concentrated in the days following her death. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You see me around sports bio AfDs enough, maybe you can count. But don't be pedantic, you know it is generally true. E.g.: I picked a random EFL team (fourth flight Bradford City A.F.C.) and only 3 of their 38 players don't have an article, with only 7 of the players making youth international appearances. It's also clearly not a BIO1E issue – as I literally said in my reason – because the coverage is not only about her death, it's about her life, just occurring around her death. I might be inclined to suggest an AfD TBAN for you: all you do in AfDs is try to shoehorn random policy reasons to delete to fit any nom, when the policies rarely apply, just listing acronyms without explanation – and then you moodily reply with nonsense like this to anyone who gives good reasons to keep. It's not appropriate behaviour. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SUSTAINED says Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. It's the attention that needs to be sustained, not the time period covered by the attention. BIO1E also demands the context should be outside a single event; that doesn't meant the focus of the coverage must be entirely on that event, it means that the coverage should be in other contexts. Since all of this coverage is in the context of her death, it does not meet that criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No second-tier Sheffield United player would have been even proposed to deletion, especially if he had youth caps.
 * Or any player from Championship, for that matter. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough notable sources. TheKaphox   T  21:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree 2A02:C7F:8B85:800:C37:5623:B2EA:EE4B (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment on this AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the above User, however in their defence, lots of us have Dynamic IP addresses. I have contributions on Wikipedia going back to 2007 217.28.6.171 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sourcing is exclusively reports of her death, with nothing actually demonstrating she was the subject of sustained, significant coverage. The article fails NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and BLP1E/BIO1E.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The present SIGCOV is not about her death, it is just being published after her death. If you're mentioning WP:NOTNEWS, the only part of that I can imagine being relevant to an RD bio is "not celebrity ticker" - but that's about "just because a notable person did something, doesn't mean the thing is notable enough to mention". Unless you're suggesting the bio is a current events article? You surely know that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is just a reminder that new articles about deceased people must meet other notability guidelines, that it isn't a guideline in itself, i.e. referring to it is not a reason to delete. How about you learn what the policies you love to overcite without any elaboration actually mean before continuing at AfD. Your !votes are always misleading at best. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage is about her death with a few lines about her career. "she played 100 times/works in marketing/list of previous clubs" is not SIGCOV regardless of how many times it is spammed in her article. Dougal18 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigcov asks that the RS coverage has more than passing mention about the subject — it feels like you're trying to say that there isn't enough in the sources about just the football to demonstrate that the subject is notable as an individual, when the point of Sigcov is that having sources dedicated about the subject shows that the RS editorially considers them notable enough to write extensively about. So it's not to the same extent but it seems like you are (probably unintentionally as vague references to policy do over time deviate) also tweaking what the guidelines actually are with a mind to deletion. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the content is what we would normally consider "significant" if it fails WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with above, the coverage is not significant, it's just reposting of the same few lines of content about her career, no matter how many sources post that same information, that doesn't mean she passes WP:GNG because of this WP:ROUTINE coverage. 100 appearances for a lower league team also didn't generate enough significant, independent coverage either to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling second flight a lower league seems like deliberate downplaying; it's still a pro league. Lack of independent Sigcov at the time can also be seen with female footballers achieving such milestones in Chanpions League teams, we're not here to RGW but we can accept simply belated sources for something that we all know is notable. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * we're not here to RGW no we aren't, so if she doesn't pass WP:GNG, then she shouldn't have an article. And nobody (not even any of the keep voters) have demonstrated multiple sources of significant coverage, which is what GNG requires. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. If she only had an obit in a local newspaper, I'd likely agree with delete voters, but Cusack has received SIGCOV in major media outlets around the world, including BBC (here and here), The Times (here), The Sun (here, here, here, here), Daily Mail (here, here, here, here, here, here), Colombia (here), Spain (here), France (here), Italy (here), Argentina (here and here), Canada (here) and USA (here and here). I doubt there's more than 50 women footballers who have ever received such breadth of international coverage. Warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All of those are just reprints of the same information, which is just a basic career summary. The same thing reprinted in 20 newspapers doesn't make it more significant coverage. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "All of those are just reprints" That's simply false, and I don't understand why you would resort to such misrepresntation. By way of example, there are five or six completely separate pieces in The Daily Mail alone. You also ignore the main point -- the worldwide interest in this person bears importantly on her notability. I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's not personalise this? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing out a blatant misrepresentation of fact is not personalizing. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment below instead of repeating the same baseless accusations. The sources that are reliable sources are almost all reprints of the Associated Press. I don't require a reply of you accusing me of misrepresenting yet again... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article." is pretty personal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sun and Daily Mail aren't reliable sources, so I ignored them from your list (and they cannot be considered towards WP:GNG as they are both perennial sources). All of the other countries' articles are just translations of the same basic information about her- it isn't significant coverage as per the Wikipedia definition. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC and The Times are among the most reliable sources known to mankind. Also, I am familiar with the Wikipedia definition of WP:SIGCOV, and each of the articles linked "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and consists of "more than a trivial mention." I am trying to better understand your fierce opposition to the Maddy Cusack article. As someone who has created so many stand-alone articles on women with far less SIGCOV than Cusack (e.g., Kathleen Lidderdale, Judith Webb), it is somewhat puzzling. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you're going ad hominem here - can we perhaps stick to the policy based discussion? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. The assertion that all 20-some articles were "reprints" riled me up a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Other articles I've created are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have an agenda with this article, contrary to what Cbl62 is trying to accuse me of. I don't require any further responses from this editor who just wants to accuse me of some made up bias, WP:ANI will be consulted if they continue this line of attack. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I struck my comment about your other articles and expressed my agreement with Alexandermcnabb's apt suggestion before you added your last comment about WP:ANI. Nothing I wrote was intended as a personal attack. I apologize if you viewed it that way and suggest we move on. You are, of course, free to consult ANI if you feel strongly. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Things get reported widely in the news all the time. That doesn't mean they are notable. Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time means that the attention should be received over a significant period of time, not just in a short burst. We've maintained this standard for thousands of victims of tragedies who are profiled significantly in worldwide media upon their death and then never discussed again. This and this BBC pieces are primary reporting entirely in the context of her death. The Times piece is another version of the second BBC article. The Sun and Daily Mail are deprecated so can't be used for anything here (I recommend adding this script that highlights consensus-unreliable sources in pink). Each of the other sources you mention is a variation on the same announcement of her death. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Women athletes do not get reported on this widely "all the time." To the contrary, the coverage here is worldwide and quite extraordinary for a woman athlete. People can and often do pass WP:GNG based on coverage that develops at the time of death -- it is a natural time to summarize and report on the person's life accomplishments. I've not previously seen editors try to use the "one-event" guideline to exclude obituary coverage. That's not consistent with my understanding.  The "one-event" guideline applies to someone who has briefly received coverage of a single event in their lives. Here, coverage that follows the end of a person's life, and delves into their life's accomplishments (in this case a long athletic career), is quite different. Moreover, the rule you quote refers to "low-profile individuals" and professional athletes are the antithesis of low-profile individuals.  Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren't independent, in-depth obituaries, they are primary news reports on someone's sudden untimely death that include some details about her athletic career. We should not be evaluating notability based on what we think a normal amount of coverage "for a woman athlete" is, because this is not coverage of an athlete's accomplishments, it's coverage of a 27-year-old's mysterious and sudden death that repeats the exact same facts about her career as found in her club's press releases/AP: SUFC player since 2019, marketing executive for SUFC, reached the milestone of 100 appearances for SUFC, named vice-captain last month, longest-serving player in current squad, former youth player, list of former clubs, quotes from Stephen Bettis. These are not intellectually independent sources.And who says a pro athlete is automatically high-profile? JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited sources cover the tragic circumstances of her death and also cover her life and career in sufficient depth to constitute SIGCOV (I thought you had conceded that point above). The guideline's usage of "low profile" is derived from defamation and right of privacy/publicity laws wherein the law gives lesser protections to public figures. Under those bodies of law, it's pretty clear that someone who pursues a 12-year career as a professional athlete, performing their job in front of crowds of spectators, and who is also a "marketing executive" for the club, has not chosen a "low profile" lifestyle. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not consider the coverage of her career to be SIGCOV, I was only stating that even if it was SIGCOV it would not pass our requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. And anyway the material about her career in these sources does not count toward notability because it is churnalized wholly from press releases. These are not independent sources separately researching her career, they are pure derivatives of at best one "independent" source (AP), which is itself almost entirely a repetition of a press release.Performing in a team sport does not automatically make someone a public figure, but that's also irrelevant because WP:N and NOTNEWS state that all subjects must receive sustained coverage, regardless of how "public" they are. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The coverage of her career is SIGCOV. We disagree on that. 2) The very guideline you cited/quoted makes the connection between the need for sustained coverage with the person being low-profile, 3) the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press are among mankind's most respected sources, not outlets for churnalism. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. News updates on the circumstances around her death are primary; if they were actually significant secondary independent coverage that would be a justification to create an article on the event "death of Maddy Cusack" instead of a biography, but they also fail NEVENT. The coverage of her career is wholly derivative of the press releases and therefore does not constitute independent secondary coverage regardless of how significant it is.2. WP:N has no requirement that a subject be low-profile. I mistakenly cited BLP1E instead of SUSTAINED, but anyway BLP1E doesn't mean living* people of sufficiently high profile are the sole exceptions to our requirement that all subjects receive sustained attention. It is just applied as another means of protection for random people who receive coverage for some event. 3. Of course BBC and The Times can engage in churnalism. It would be slightly different if these news articles were actually going into significant, independent biographical detail, but they are not. They are regurgitating the same set of facts that were included in the press releases and/or AP. The BBC news pieces are reporting an update on her inquest and a tribute paid toward her. What biographical info on her career do they provide outside the context of her death?   The Times piece has these details: So again, where is the independent biographical coverage that demonstrates she is notable for her athletic career and not her death? JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which news reports contain encyclopedic info on her career background that goes significantly beyond what is contained here: SUFC:AP: JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per the SIGCOV presented by Cbl62 and Oaktree b which have more than simple trivial mentions of Ms. Cusack. Passes WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.  Frank  Anchor  17:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The announcements of her death are all derived from an AParticle/press releases, which are where all of the details on her career come from. These news pieces are not intellectually independent of each other and are not independent of the subject. The few articles that provide info beyond that are simply quoting other non-independent sources. One report adds a few sentences of trivial non-encyclopedic detail (The greatest shock is generated when taking into account that the footballer had played less than a month ago, on September 3, her last game with the team, starting in the 1-0 home defeat against Sunderland in the Championship . English second division. She was substituted in the 58th minute of the match and since then she had been absent in two more league games, against Blackburn Rovers away and Lewes at home.) The updates covering memorials by her teammates are just primary news. WP:NRV: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, WP:NBIO: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is intellectually independent?
 * "are not independent of the subject."
 * The subject is the person that article is about, all these articles are independent.
 * You are quoting WP:Notnews and even in this small subtract it says "events"
 * The enduring notability — we already found sources pre-dating death. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources must not be derived from each other or from press releases. Most of the sources are either reprints of the AP piece or churnalized from it and the press release. NOTNEWS applies to all topics, as should be evident by it saying "persons and events". Sources from before death have to also be significant and non-routine, and none of those sources are. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles about persons which are written mostly via obits, or even only based on obits. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is enduring coverage:
 * https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11683/12969790/maddy-cusack-police-say-no-suspicious-circumstances-regarding-sheffield-united-women-midfielders-death
 * https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/09/22/sport/maddy-cusack-death-sheffield-united-spt-intl/index.html Kirill C1 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep After some thought I agree that this is more than the standard routine, there is a saying "Beyond scope" and I feel we have this. This is way past general notability, there might be some mid-term lasting notability but I am sure it will die down after that. I don't see much after a year, but wikipedia is all about cataloging from biographies to paintings. We can always have a new AfD in a year, but as of now, it is doing no harm. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Govvy, where is the independent SIGCOV of her? None of the articles so far provide any significant detail beyond regurgitating press releases, which are explicitly discounted from notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aww, There is news and articles with information, thus coverage is available, which is WP:BASIC coverage. So... what I say is true from a certain point of view.  Govvy (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be condescending. NBIO explicitly says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ... Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not. So where are these articles that are not substantively derived from the press releases/AP? And where is the evidence her notability does not stem from coverage of a single event? JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Condescending? Really? How long do you think I've been posting to AfDs in my lifetime? Policies do not need to be explained to me, and frankly I am bemused at times by people who think they can run a lecture. There are a wave of keep votes here, which clearly suggests something. This is a biography and at the same time it is recent news, you're more likely to offend people when posting about someone they care about is NOTNEWS! You need to be very careful now, as the way I see it, you failed to show any sense of honour to my previous post, nor respond in a kind and polite manner. Govvy (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How else should I interpret that "aww" and youtube link? And I'd like to know how you think any of the biographical coverage actually satisfies JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We have SIGCOV in at least three of the most respected news sources on our planet: BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press. These institutions are not known for engaging in churnalism. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Except the only SIGCOV is of the circumstances of her death, which is primary news. The coverage of her background is directly and exclusively churnalized from the press releases and is therefore not eligible for GNG. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. And again, BBC, The Times, and AP absolutely engage in churnalism. Flat Earth News (book) describes research showing 80% of stories in the Times, the Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail were wholly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies or public relations firms such as the Press Association. Other research has found Outlets like The Telegraph, The Independent, and even the BBC repurposed up to 97% of their content from press releases in their stories, essentially copying and pasting their way to ad revenue. AP has even been automating some of its finance and sports reporting since 2015...And all of that is besides the fact that the coverage is 100% in the context of her death and is not sustained whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Warofdreams here too. The ~7 facts on her background repeated in every one of these stories come directly from the press releases announcing her death: they were curated as her career highlights by the FA/SUFC, not independently dug up and determined to be important by news agencies. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty thin reed upon which to accuse the BBC and The Times of having engaged in churnalism. That multiple news organizations report the same facts is not evidence that they have done something untoward or unethical or engaged in what you call churnalism. Rather, it is evidence that the facts are the facts.  You have no idea the extent of fact-checking and/or independent reporting undertaken by the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press. For you to leap to the conclusion that each of these preeminent news organizations is simply engaging in unethical practices is rank speculation. If this type of argument were to prevail, then our reliable sourcing standards would be open to attack in every case. There are certain news sources that we can and should trust based on a long history of reliability and reputation for careful fact-checking: BBC and The Times would be at the top of that list. In cases where news organizations simply reprint press releases, an appeal to "churnalism" may be appropriate.  But an attempt to neutralize reporting by the world's most respected news organizations, simply because there is an alignment of facts (and because, not surprisingly, the team's statements are a fundamental starting point in any reportage on this story), is several bridges too far. Cbl62 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian (here) is yet another reliable source, and it has even more biographical information. The biographical facts reported by The Guardian include: (1) Cusack was "a Sheffield United footballer", (2) Cusack "died at the age of 27"; (3) Cusack "played for the women's team since 2019"; (4) Cusack made "more than 100 appearances for the club"; (5) Cusack "also worked for the club as a marketing executive"; (6) "the cause of death has not been disclosed"; (7) Cusack was "part of a number of teams at Sheffield United"; (8) Cusack "was popular with everyone that she came into contact with"; (9) "Cusack was the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club"; (10) Cusack previously worked for Sheffield United Community Foundation until 2021; (11) Cusack had recently "entered her sixth season"; (12) Cusack "also represented England at age-group level"; and (13) Cusack "previously played for Birmingham City". Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The further one digs, the clearer it becomes that the major newspapers have not simply copied and pasted the same seven facts from a press release. There are interviews with various sources and varying degrees of factual background included in the accounts . For example, The Independent (here) reported the following facts: (1) Cusack was "Sheffield United's longest-serving women's player"; (2) Cusack died at the age of 27; (3) Cusack was a midfielder; (4) Cusack "was named vice-captain last month:' (5) Cusack "had just started her sixth season"; (6) Cusack "had made over 100 appearances for the club" and "reached the milestone" in the prior season; (7) Cusack was "a women's team player since 2019"; (8) Cusack was also a "marketing executive for the Football Club"; (9) Cusack moved over from Sheffield United Community Foundation to the club's offices at Brmall Lane in 2921; (10) Cusack helped market all areas of the Blades football team; (11) "Cusack joined the Blades halfway through their first campaign" in January 2019; (12) Cusack was a "fomer England youth itnernational" player; and (13) Cusack "had signed a new contract extension with the Blades in July". Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude. First of all, churnalism isn't "unethical", it's a widespread practice in journalism that, as the research I cited states, is employed by The Times, the BBC, The Guardian, basically everywhere. You think any of these newspapers is individually instructing reporters to research Cusack's career in-depth? No, this is a low-importance human-interest news piece so all their original reporting is limited to the primary developments surrounding her death. These aren't obituaries. Second: literally every single one of those facts comes from the press releases. Not a single item is fresh. They even use the exact same wording! Rehashing the info from contemporaneous press releases is the definition of churnalism and is explicitly discounted from GNG. Third: even if it wasn't derived from PR, this material would constitute one source. None of the papers are providing any additional biographical info whatsoever, let alone SIGCOV, so it doesn't even meet GNG anyway. Fourth: Even if coverage met GNG it would not constitute SUSTAINED attention. The only reason anyone is mentioning her sports career at all is due to one event, and the coverage is all inextricably linked to that event. It would be different if there was some sort of retrospective where the focus wasn't'' on the circumstances of her death, but that is not the case. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Dude"? What did I do to earn the title? As a Lebowski fan, I'm honored. Anyway, you're over-expansive assertion of churnalism, and your bald assertion that no fact-checking was done, is pure speculation and is undercut by the strong reputation for fact-checking by these preeminent sources. It's also undercut by the fact that each of the articles is presenting different subsets of fact in different ways. They are not simply reprinting a press release. The fact that "the facts are the facts" does not turn these reliable sources into unreliable (or unethical) churnalism factories. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is coverage that is enough for article.
 * We can write a fairly long article on her, coverage is significant. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, although the large majority of press coverage is in response to her death, it covers her career. We should distinguish between coverage which arises solely because someone dies in a notable way - which could be one event - and coverage following someone's death which covers their notable life, as the sources cited do. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes GNG even if most of the coverage is post-mortem.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, a lot of posthumous coverage of her football career but I also found news stories going back to 2020:
 * Maddy Cusack confident Neil Redfearn can take Sheffield United Women in FA Women’s Superleague (The Yorkshire Post, Sept 2020)
 * Maddy Cusack agrees new deal with Sheffield United Women (The Star, June 2021)
 * Maddy Cusack: Long-serving Sheffield United midfielder commits to club for another season (The Star, May 2022) Ackatsis (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of sentences specifically on Cusack does not pass GNG. Contract signings is routine coverage. If it wasn't then every footballer who signs a couple of contracts would be entitled to a Wiki article.Dougal18 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, there would not be any discussion, if this would be a male player. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Marcus Cyron. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Think enough time has passed that there is significant coverage about her unfortunate passing. Though I think her footballing career also passes GNG. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreed with above arguments, lots of coverage. I note the article also references news coverage during her career. ResonantDistortion 12:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.