Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqui Melksham

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. The "keep" opinions assert that the subject meets WP:GNG, but they do not explain by virtue of which sources she does so. These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Melksham

[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 subject seems to be notable only for a single event. Normally, I'd suggest that the page be redirected to the event at issue, but it seems that the game itself isn't notable enough to merit an article, so I think deletion is warranted. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she officiated the opening match of the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, plus one more match a quarter final. That alone is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ So officiating in more than one match equals an automatic GNG pass? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officiating the opening match of the world cup does.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, significant coverage in sources meets GNG. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of significant sources. She officiated the World Cup opening match. Definitely meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling, or do you not actually understand what GNG is? JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @BabbaQ:. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage of her. Dougal18 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of significant sources in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. BTW England's up 4-0 and appears to be heading to the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final. I'm watching the match on ESPN in the States and what a crowd! GS, you must be thrilled! Hmlarson (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Hmlarson, WP:GNG has been met indeed. And also congrats to England.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The FIFA source is not independent, N. Worldfootball.net is a stats database, fails SIGCOV N. The DFB.de site just lists Melksham's name -- trivial coverage, N. No idea what's in the South East Advertiser, ?. The ESPN opinion piece is WP:primary and does not contain SIGCOV, N. The CBS opinion piece is also primary, N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a complete absence of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Participation-based criteria no longer exist for football and, in any case, referees were never covered under WP:NFOOTBALL so this would have been a 'delete' even before the recent WP:NSPORTS changes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't see how GNG is met. I mostly agree with JoelleJay's analysis, except the South East Advertiser is a newspaper, very local, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. 1 reliable source with possible significant coverage. I also don't think that PRIMARY applies to the ESPN opinion column nor the CBS piece. This quibble is really a point of order. They are opinion pieces, yes, and not reporting. Therefore they are not likely to have useful encyclopedic information, and I think these are no exception, because while the topic's actions are discussed for this one event, it doesn't make an encyclopedia article. I have some sympathy that the topic may pass ANYBIO#2 as refereeing a World Cup match is a rare accomplishment, but I just don't see this passing WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26, FWIW, I'm basing my PRIMARY analysis on opinion columns and editorials being included as examples of primary sources here and here, and therefore explicitly excluded from contributing to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, that's fine, but better to cite WP:RSEDITORIAL then, not PRIMARY, in my opinion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The South East Advertiser piece (available via NewsBank) is about 280 words, but over 100 of them are Melksham expressing her feelings about the final etc. I couldn't find enough independent coverage in reliable coverage to argue that the subject meets GNG, although there were lots of reports covering her role in the US-Brazil match. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (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.