Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Meyer

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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will emerge at this time. BD2412 T 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Meyer

[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)

I initially tagged this with {{Prod}} but it was untagged without explanation by 204.112.130.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

The subject is an American soccer player who has received recent national press coverage after she was found dead from suicide. The article is likely a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM.

All of the significant, third-party coverage of her is due to her death. All the other sources are WP:ROUTINE, except for a high school student newspaper that mentions her involvement in a Nickelodeon reality show. Beyond the single event, I don't think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and she doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY criteria. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete removing the suicide form the equation, she's just a college level soccer player, not very special either, 50 goals in 44 games isn't a superb athletic performance (that's about what an average player would make, one goal a game). Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that she was a goalkeeper and had not scored any competitive goals (and a goal a game would be considered spectacular at most levels). I think the numbers you're referring to are her NCAA appearances: 50 total, 44 in the regular season. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind at least one of those seasons was significantly COVID-shortened. Rikster2 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Soccer isn't my sport, I read that as I would baseball statistics. Still leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - This is an interesting case. Her suicide has been HEAVILY covered by pretty much every outlet in the US and has been used to draw attention to mental health concerns with American young people. But that is, as the nominator points out, WP:SINGLEEVENT. The reason it is interesting to me is that Meyer was also the subject of a viral video in 2019 of her celebrations after getting the match-winning save on a PK for a national championship, it was even named on a lot of "top sports plays of 2019" lists (example). But I looked for any other coverage - profiles, human interest stories, etc., and can't find anything else significant. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. I don't know enough of the subject area to know if there is enough (or any) coverage of her before her death. However, there could be a lasting impact, similar to the cases of Olivia Podmore and Kelly Catlin, albeit they were both notable before they died. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I bring up WP:RECENTISM, because like you say, her passing might be remembered in a larger discussion about mental health but there's no way to know now. As Rikster points out, she did have some notoriety because of her heroics in a championship game, but there's not enough coverage of her overall life and career. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her statistics aside, it almost seems too soon to judge how notable she'll become because of her sad finale in life. She may very well be used to promote mental health in the college population, she may not. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my !vote. I missed the in depth just womens sports interview on the article. I think there is enough there from the NCAA title that when you add in the voluminous post-suicide coverage she meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I think there's enough coverage not about her death to merit notability. Giant Snowman 22:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a bit disingenuous to say that there were no significant coverage before her death. Her performance in the 2019 College Cup generated quite a bit, some of which were cited in the article already. Seany91 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not disingenuous at all - ~~there are not currently any independent WP:RS about her and the 2019 championship on the article.~~ And I looked long and hard both on Google and newspapers.com because I was SURE I'd find some. If you can find any, please put them in the article because I came up empty. I would be happy to change my !vote if you do. Rikster2 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually the Just Women's Sports interview on the article probably does qualify. I am not familiar with the site so I don't know its reach, but it is independent. Rikster2 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there is significant coverage about her life and soccer career in addition to her death. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel like she scrapes GNG with the sources now in the article. Did find these sources during a search [1][2][3] and added them to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added by Alvaldi are enough to remove any doubt that this passes GNG. I can't see any valid merge target either and there's no way that all this well sourced content should be deleted outright. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominator and I think I'm leaning towards weak keep now, mostly based on links shared by Alvaldi. Individually, I don't know that they're enough (the first is a "local girl done good" story from her hometown paper and the third is from a Stanford-focused vertical of SBNation so neither is completely independent coverage), but together and in combination with the coverage of her passing, I think they get us to WP:GNG. I think this article is fine, though I wonder if sites like SB and the Athletic with hyperfocused coverage of individual teams end up opening up WP:GNG to more sportspeople who haven't played at the highest levels. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd count the two SBNation articles as one source, and when added to the lengthy Just Women's Sports interview already on the article and the post-death coverage I think she meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG as per above. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was she notable without the suicide? No, she became notable after the suicide and becoming part of the news. ~~If this article were to stand, then her player statistics need to be compiled.~~ KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 16:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your previous comment -- literally -- just indicated that "she is notable". No? Yet, you "voted" Delete? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:17, 17 March 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.