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. Missvain (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Rigon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG since the coverage is trivial, played lots of amateur football and the pinnacle of her career was playing 9 games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentKeep - I'm not sure that this one is a straight forward GNG fail. There is some in-depth coverage in the sources linked in the article although the one that looks like it might be the best is hidden behind a paywall. Is anyone able to access this and confirm if it contains in-depth coverage? I also found this which is more than just a trivial mention. Spiderone 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Further, the W-League is the top women's league in Australia for those new to the subject. The vast majority of top women's leagues around the world are excluded from the WP:FPL essay. A look at the contribution history will indicate why that is. See also WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thousands of men's top league players are excluded as well. This is not an argument to keep. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide an argument based in policy that supports this supposed exception. WP:NFOOTY details notability for footballers, and part of that criteria is playing in a fully-professional league. I see no exemption for women footballers. If the policy exists, it has not yet been provided. Nothing in WP:SPORTCRIT is any more relevant here than WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice to meet you, Jay. N:FOOTY and its essay N:FPL fail the vast majority of top women's football leagues around the world and is not reliable. See also WP:WOSO. We're always looking for more editors to actually contribute to the articles, not mass delete them. Hmlarson (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like you need to take this up at WT:NSPORT instead of making assertions without a basis in policy. You have yet to demonstrate that women's football is granted an exception beyond "because it is" as an argument. Take this conversation to a more appropriate venue. Jay eyem (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Been there; done that - but I suppose it's been a few years. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk)

Keep Passes WP:GNG with around 40 articles on a simple Google News search and per articles mentioned above by Spiderone. Article itself is also more fleshed out and better referenced than quite a few one-line stubs on footballers who scrape by WP:NFOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The adelaidenow articles are about a round table discussion and the Football Federation SA’s Celebration of Women’s Sport not Ripon. Dougal18 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although the player fails WP:NFOOTY, they appear to pass WP:GNG through this and this (and possibly another behind a paywall). I have my concerns about The Advertiser as a source, but the consensus seems to be that it is reliable for sports news. I would say that this scrapes by on significant coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you please give up on your hobby horse about The Advertiser? For news article it is a reliable source. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a tabloid, and tabloid journalism is generally not reliable. There's a reason why so many of the tabloids discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources are considered unreliable. If you're really that concerned about this topic of conversation, take it elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to "take it elsewhere" because you're trying to justify it as a means for not a full support for keeping this particular article and it's an argument that is a complete nonsense. As I have already told you elsewhere, a tabloid in Australia is different from a tabloid elsewhere - the Advertiser is not the equivalent of the Daily Mail or something like that. It is South Australia's main newspaper and has generally not had concerns raised about its reliability other than in relation to the concerns generally about News Corp, and those relate generally to political issues (and things like climate change, etc.) Sports articles do not fall in that category. Deus et lex (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is precisely why I said that "the consensus seems to be that it is reliable for sports news". I did some research on the publication and, yes, it is akin to the Daily Mail. But again, this is NOT the place to discuss this. If you seriously have issues with this, you need to take it to another venue, because a deletion article for a footballer with nine appearances is NOT the place for it. Jay eyem (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to call you out on your claim of "research", again, it is nonsense. The Advertiser is NOT akin to the Daily Mail, it's a State-based paper with a long history. The fact you make baseless statements like that shows that you know nothing about the source or the article. Please stop making such nonsense claims. Deus et lex (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is well time for you to drop the stick and take this conversation elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm entitled to call out ridiculous arguments like the one you are raising. It should not be relied on as a means for deletion and you know it. That's all I'm saying. And you can't just tell people to take arguments elsewhere (I'm not the only one you have said that to) when you don't agree with something. Deus et lex (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Jay eyem: If you don't want people commenting on your thoughts on the status of The Advertiser and you don't think they are relevant to the deletion discussion, you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • BIG difference between one comment and four of, essentially, the exact same response. That is the definition of WP:BADGER. I have opened up a discussion at WP:RS/N to discuss the source further. This entire conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the AfD at hand, and should have taken place in its entirety elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am also not obligated to answer you. I have started the conversation at WP:RS/N so if you still feel so compelled to continue the conversation, do it there and not here. Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thank you for listing the conversation at WP:RS/N. Deus et lex (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Fenix down, isn't your role to assess consensus, not comment on what you think is or isn't notable? Deus et lex (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Its to assess the strength of arguments. I haven't made any comments on whether or not the subject is notable or not. What I have done is note a lack of consensus, acknowledge an attempt by editors to show sources but highlight weaknesses in the positioning of their arguments which makes it difficult (and in the instances where sources are behind payrolls and presented without any summary of their contents, impossible) to adequately assess the strength of those arguments and therefore to accurately assess consensus one way or the other as it develops. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Fenix down, appreciate the clarification. Deus et lex (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fenix down - I notice you don't do much commenting at all on any of the women's football AFDs anymore and seem to focus on closing them -- sometimes even when the consensus is not clear per WP:CLOSEAFD. Hope we don't see that again here. Hmlarson (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if Fenix down is after what is in the paywalled article in the Advertiser, the article Jay eyem links to above is a comprehensive and lengthy article that is only about Stella Rigon (it is not just a casual mention in an article on a game or something like that, nor is it a press release or anything like that). That article also indicates that she was the captain of Adelaide United, something which the article does not currently say. In my mind both of those things strengthens a claim to notability. Deus et lex (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, would be best if someone else closes now i have made comments outside of the relist template. Feels like a keep to me given what people are saying about the articles behind the paywall. Fenix down (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep WP:GNG is met here - the Adelaide newspaper is printed in tabloid format, like most newspapers in Australia - it doesn't mean it's not a reliable source as Adelaide's local daily newspaper for most things. Probably would be best if someone other than Fenix down closed this now, too, per their marginal involvement. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep border line this one.... yes she fails WP:NFOOTY but I think she has just enough coverage for WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I hadn't actually given a !vote until now. For the reasons, the paywalled content and other sources provided shows there is substantial independent coverage that meets GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Narrowly satisfies WP:GNG, but satisfies it nonetheless. Elms^super 05:30, 1 December 2020 (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.