Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Bertrand

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.

Kira Bertrand

Kira Bertrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and Oklahoma. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a good number of sources. Sure, some may be be trivial/routine, but there are some decent ones like 1, 2, and 3. While I agree that there are way too many permastubs on wikipedia, I would say when there is a large quantity of sourcing regarding a player to write a decent article covering many different events, it adds up to being acceptable enough for an article. This player is the 'sourced' captain of the national team as well, which is notable as well. While everyone on a team may not be notable, a lead figure such as a captain usually is. RedPatch (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source is routine coverage and the last two are no where near SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources on page look significant enough, especially one highlighting her captaining the national team. Enough to make a comprehensive page.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Not enough in-depth sources. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per RedPatch and Ortizesp. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as other users have pointed out. The sources seem strong enough to support the page remaining. Surely, the page should be improved, but AfDs are no substitution for article cleanup.Historyday01 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails
  primary source from her college and [5] is a trivial mention. Alvaldi (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, agreed with Alvaldi. The first source is also very clearly not RS or independent (it's a submission from "EmoNews contributor" credited to DFA Media). JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article was here for a year and there were no issues until a poorly thought out rule change, that I ultimately believe will be temporary. Mass articles being deleted due to hot button issues are not what this site should be about. The sourcing looks fine to me.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails
  WP:GNG; while CONCACAF and League1 Ontario have issued some blurbs about her career (and she made an all-star roster), those are not independent coverage, nor are the many press releases about her signing or being added to her university's coaching staff. I simply can't find anything that isn't trivial or routine in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The refs in the article do not add up to enough significant, in-depth coverage to meet
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if those advocating Keep were more specific about how and which sources establish GNG for this article subject instead of just saying sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I already voted, but given she scored the first ever competitive goal for Dominica in women's international competition (as sourced in article), I also think that gives her a fairly notable status in the country's sporting history. I added it to the lead paragraph. RedPatch (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? That doesn't qualify for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say "So what?" It's dismissive of other editors. And this event could be SIGCOV if some media source decides to cover it some day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, it's totally irrelevant to determining notability now. The only possibly independent source anyone has even identified contains part of one sentence directly on her, in a 5-sentence routine announcement in local news. That is plainly insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was with the under-20 team, as she hasn't yet scored for the senior team, and it drew essentially zero attention in independent, reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability There's various information cited from secondary sources such as [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. The fact that a sizeable article is able to be written is evidence of that given multiple independent sources were combined to create such an article. RedPatch (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

...Facebook and blogspot posts? Really? 1 is the trivial namedrop source from before N, 2 is an even more trivial mention N, 3 is the obvious press release from the Dominica Football Association from before N, 4 is a facebook post N, 5 is a blog post N, 6 is a press release from a non-independent org N, 7 is a school newspaper article N, and 8 is one sentence plus a quote N. BASIC is not met with trivial, unreliable, and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The third source brought up by RedPatch has enough non-trivial content regarding Bertrand that I consider it to be significant, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG. The rest are all either non-independent or insignificant/trivial. Frank Anchor 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per RedPatch and Ortizesp. Shotgun pete (talk) 4:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete It's hard to find adequate sources when potential ones are mixed together with facebook posts, blogs and non-independent press releases, but, when this refbomb receives the attention it doesn't deserve, it becomes apparent that independent and significant coverage is not available anyway.
  Avilich (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - These sources are not significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources are primary, interview quotes, promos, stats, social media, lots of articles about a party and a little ROUTINE news. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nowhere near what a BLP needs. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  23:11, 22 March 2023 (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.