Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Draper

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. Arguments on the Delete side carry considerably more P&G weight than those arguing to keep the article, resulting in a rough consensus to delete. If the athlete becomes notable within a year, the page can be recreated (or restored) in mainspace; no point in parking it in draft until sources emerge, and there was no support for the draftification proposal. Owen× ☎ 12:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Draper

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Only secondary sources in the article and found during WP:BEFORE check are match reports with surface level coverage of the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am happy with the sources in the article, young player with on going career, although somewhat primary heavy, there seems enough to show basic. Govvy (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage of the subject? AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV is only intended for non-specific topics per WP:SNG. Please see BASIC and SPORTBASIC for notability of people (basic criteria) as well as for athletes (additional criteria per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Hence there is a distinct difference for people compared to general topics: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". CNC (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. All I see here are primary sources, passing mentions, and some YouTube clips. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (contributor). I tried improving this to bring it back to mainspace, based on elements of BASIC per SPORTBASIC (the guidelines that covers the notability of people and athletics), as a combination of secondary sources, rather than the need for exclusive SIGCOV (the guidelines that covers the notability of general topics). So far there is Sky Sports and BBC for this, which I believe is beyond trivial, and borderline BASIC per Govvy comment. It's otherwise unfortunately that the BBC's Women's Football Show episodes are no longer available, as I remember distinct post-game coverage of Draper after her initial goal; that of her international career, prospects and style of play (beyond ROUTINE), that would certainly cross the threshold for basic notability (people and sports-related). I'll try find a copy of this somewhere to see if it could be used as a cite av media ref, even if not possible as an online source. I think it's also fair to assume basic based on "they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level", that of being top scorer in the U17 Euro qualifying, as subjectively the U17 Euros are the highest level of competition at that age range, though I can understand how this is intended for senior competitions only, as well as only a guide to likelihood of notability, as opposed to notability itself. Either way, it wouldn't be too much of a loss if the page get's deleted, as I suspect there will be SIGCOV soon enough for it to return. It would be unfortunate for an active WSL player to have their page deleted, but based on policy/coverage it'd be understandable. I can only assume it's age-related as to why there isn't further coverage, given she would be one of the very few active WSL players to have scored a league goal and not have an article. CNC (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added a third source for notability [1], so per above comment, that should cover SPORTBASIC. The online source is unavailable, but can be verified here, or otherwise by requesting archival footage from the BBC for non-commercial purposes if preferred (but otherwise nothing wrong with citing media as RS per WP:PUBLISHED). I realise as well that ROUTINE only covers local sources for sport, so with BBC and Sky Sports, game coverage counts for multiple sig cov. At least, I think it's hard to argue that coverage of scoring the winning goal in an important game isn't significant. We can get round to the YT argument if needed, but as it's a verified account from a reliable source (Sky Sports Football) it is "inheriting their level of reliability" per WP:RSPYOUTUBE so shouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Routine is definitely not restricted to local sources; per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. NSPORT's requirement that local sources cannot be routine game coverage does not mean only local sources can be routine game coverage. The video is primary and does not contain encyclopedic coverage: it is routine match commentating and amounts to no more than a sentence or two at most: absolutely not SIGCOV. If this was sufficient for NSPORT purposes we would have articles on every DI and probably DII college football player. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated above, but also worth adding here that Draper recently signed a pro contract with Leicester. Until now, her WSL appearances had been as an academy player mostly coming off the bench, so reasonable chance of her making match day squads more often. Delete this article and we could end up having to restore it long before Christmas. Leonstojka (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources present in the article seem enough to WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is far too weak and transactional to meet GNG and especially YOUNGATH, and SPORTCRIT is absolutely not met by one or two sentences of unscripted video commentary on one match. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no instance of WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source as required under WP:NSPORT, and thus the subject also fails WP:GNG which requires multiple instances. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE match coverage, stats pages, and coverage in affiliated sources. Per a "keep" voter's assertion that she may become more notable in the future given her career prospects, I would be open to a "draftify" outcome if others believe that would be productive; ping me if so and I'll reconsider my current !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this appears to be the case that notability is not quite there, but due to the age of the subject and current state of the article, 'sufficient' notability could exist within the next year. C 679 10:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.