Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hazard

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. Volume and depth of sourcing has been shown to be insufficient Star Mississippi 03:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hazard

[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)

The Telegraph source is a sponsored article by the same company that sponsors Lewes Women. All other sources are not independent of Hazard. She fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think playing in the Championship (plus 2 league appearances with Arsenal in the FAWSL) does not always denotes "fails GNG". Some sources may be replaced however. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the above, the sourcing needs improvement but she is notable.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NFOOTBALL has been scrapped since 2022. Notability is not inherited either. Dougal18 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - level of play is not important, what matters is the coverage. I don't have any issues with the Telegraph article being sponsored by an accounting software company, the coverage looks good (although it is paywalled), but on its own it is not enough. Giant Snowman 12:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article may contain bias due to The Telegraph's relationship with Lewes FC, but is covered enough to pass on WP:GNG. I don't see a really strong reason for deletion in this case. Svartner (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I also think that it is probably slightly unproductive deleting the article as top division professional footballers are generally notable. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs better arguments than "footballers are generally notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing career already with decent sources with fully pro WOmens Super League experience. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The amount of keep votes eschewing actual discussion of sources is perplexing, but feel free to ping me if any evidence of WP:SIGCOV is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no significant coverage can be shown outside of the one The Telegraph article, then she fails the WP:GNG. Simple as that. People arguing Keep above because of games or division played should remember that the sports SNGs were deprecated and the GNG is all that matters now. It should actually be an easier bar to meet than the "fully professional" nonsense from before, so if you can't even show proper secondary coverage, then the person isn't notable. Silver seren^C 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable person. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what independent reliable sources showing significant coverage, ie WP:GNG, Helpfulwikieditoryay? Silver seren^C 22:26, 2 February 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.