User talk:Funafuti1978

Welcome!

Hello, Funafuti1978, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Samantha Kerr (footballer, born 1999)

The article Samantha Kerr (footballer, born 1999) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Funafuti1978. You have new messages at Naypta's talk page.
Message added 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

| Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Funafuti1978. You have new messages at Naypta's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

| Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jenna Fife for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Fife is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Erin Clachers

Hello Funafuti1978,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Erin Clachers for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thursby16 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spartans W.F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louise Mason (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Men's / Women's Notability

Continuing discussion from here:

First of all the fact that only men are discussing this, shows that Wikipedia, football and debate in general is still a men's world (sorry to bring the gender comment again - eventhough I am a man). Second of all it looks like discussing is more important here than making Wikipedia a bigger success. We are not talking about low level amateur players wanting to be covered on Wikipedia here, we are talking about top division players from one of the worlds top 25 women's soccer countries (FIFA Ranking / EWCR Ranking): Scotland. In my opinion players from the following top divisions should be covered:

North America:

USA - NWSL (easy)

Asia:

Japan - Nadeshiko League (doable)
Korea Republic - WK League (doable)
Australia - W.League (easy)
China - Chinese Women's National League (tricky)

South America:

Brazil - Campeonato Brasileiro (easy)
Chile - Primera Division (tricky)
Colombia - Colombian League (tricky)

Europe:

Germany - Frauen Bundesliga (easy)
France - Femeinine Division 1 (easy)
England - WSL 1 (easy)
Sweden - Damallsvenskan (easy)
Norway - Toppserien (easy)
Netherlands - Vrouwen Eredivisie (doable)
Italy - Serie A (doable)
Spain - Primera Division (doable)
Denmark - Elitedivisionen (tricky)
Switzerland - Nationalliga A (easy)
Iceland - Urvalsdeild (easy)
Scotland - SWPL (tricky)
Russia - Supreme Division (doable)
Ukraine - Premier League (easy)
Austria - Frauenliga (easy)
Poland - Ekstraliga (doable)
Serbia - Prva Zvenska (tricky)

Players having at least one appearance in those competitions are mostly far better players than national team players from Vietnam, Jordan, Bulgaria, Faroe Islands, Haiti, Venezuela or Zambia who are featured and allowed to be covered on Wikipedia. What is unclear is that the money above merit argument for leagues is not there for national teams. Are those national teams all fully professional? Mostly they are absolutely not. Are they well covered in their countries, mostly absolutely not. So Wikipedia is favouring the real unprofessional above the semi professional. Then another thing, in the Vrouwen Eredivisie (a leagues someone decided to be professional on Wikipedia - which it is not - can someone finally explain why SWPl is an issue and Vrouwen Eredivisie not?) there are women teams that train more than their professional men counter parts. Which means the ladies loose more time on their sports while combining it with studies, while the men earn more for less work. Professionalism isn't only related to money - it's also related to the effort you make to reach your goal. It is quite clearly the men in this discussion have never even been close to women's football, than they would have known what time the ladies in these top divisions invest to reach the top. Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best not to derail this specific AfD with a wider discussion on female football notability, that would be better at WT:FOOTY or WT:FPL, but I think you are focussing far too much on the subject specific guideline. You need to consider two points: firstly that the reason NFOOTY at least sort of works is that it acknowledges international footballers as being players, regardless of gender who have played at the highest possible level. Secondly, and this is the key thing, NFOOTY is always superceded by GNG. If an individual, regardless of gender is not receiving significant coverage specifically about them then it doesn't matter what level anyone perceives them to play at, the lack of coverage means they are not notable. The opposite is also therefore true by definition. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I agree with is that there needs to be a framework. I also understand the current framework works well for men's football - since if you guys say it does I believe so (all though some in the list are a bit arbitrary - most look right). But it is simply sure it does not work for women's football for all the above reasons - since only 1 league would really fit that model (which is NWSL - probably the only fully 'money-wise' professional league in women's football). But in what women need to do for it - there are far more professional leagues. And in strength it could be that on some days clubs in Bundesliga, Damallsvenskan, Feminine 1 would simply beat NWSL clubs (who are professional). So in my opinion the only measurement is merit and results. I picked a combinaton of the leagues from the top 25 teams on the FIFA Ranking (that have a organized league pyramid) and the highest performing leagues in the continents that have a club competition (Copa Libertadores Feminino and UEFA Women's Champions League - based on EWCR). That should be good enough to cover the world of women's football in a proper way. If we would have a sensible rule I would have defended it with you, but the current rule qualifies only 1 league (NWSL). And next to that everybody is breaking the rule online - see Vrouwen Eredivisie profiles, W. League, Bundesliga profiles etc. Which is the best proof the rule does not work. Or you need to do a hugh clean-up operation. Then on your second point, the amount of articles about players. I think that is not the biggest problem, I just did not do a full research on those players yet. Women's football at a good level is well covered in regional and country-wide newspapers - but not in all countries those newspapers have good online sources. Furthermore UEFA, FIFA, FAs, official club websites should be trustworthy sources. Funafuti1978 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think the problems with your argument are numerous. I don't think it would do any harm to try to discuss it at WT:FOOTY, but I see the following initial issues:

Your selection of 25 leagues is entirely arbitrary. How does this cover women's football in a "proper way". Surely GNG already covers this? If there are articles about a specific player that meet GNG then it does not matter what level she plays at. I can't think how any arbitrary cut off point could be used to support any notability criterion in the long term if it could even gain consensus in the first place.
Your comment, that women make a lot of effort to get to the top of their game is undeniably true, but an individual's effort at a given task does not confer notability as the effort itself does not attract attention necessarily, particularly because in many cases it is futile.
The FPL criterion, although not perfect, does work in the sense that those leagues that demonstrate a high level of professionalism are only able to do so because of the amount of money available through sponrsorship, etc. The only reason this money exists is because the leagues attract significant attention. It therefore stands to reason that those leagues that are not fully professional are those leagues that attract significantly less attention. The notion of an arbitrary top 25 therefore makes no sense as it has no bearing on the notability of any individual competition contained within. It is a fundamental statement of fact that there are fewer fully professional, or even professional women's leagues globally, because they attract significantly attention than men's competitions. This may be an example of bias in the wider world, but this should not and cannot be solved simply by moving the goalposts for notability because of sympathy for a gender.
The confession that you did not do full research on the articles you wrote is concerning, it essentially suggests that you are creating articles without even confirming yourself whether GNG is satisfied. you should not be doing this. Instead, you should incubate any draft in your user space while you build it up to GNG standard.
Online sources are nice but not essential. If you know where there is a decent offline source, you merely have to reference it. Editors should AGF and I would be very surprised to see an article deleted because the sources were offline only. However, your comments above seem to erroneously conflate coverage of a competition and women's football in general with the assumption that this makes players within those competitions inherently notable by extension. This is a problem for two reasons:
Firstly, notability is not inherited, subjects stand and fall on their own merits.
Secondly coverage of a competition may include numerous mentions of a particular player, but these are for both men and women, almost always in the form of routine match reporting, there is demonstrably a much lower level of detailed articles on female players than male, again as a result of the differing levels of popularity.
Finally there is a fundamental error in your assumption that UEFA, FIFA, FAs, official club websites should be trustworthy sources. These are all primary sources in this instance. Whilst they are almost certainly reliable for adding content to notable individuals, they cannot be used to support notability on their own or in addition to third party sources because they are sources that are inherently associated with and responsible for the promotion of the subject in question. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The professionalism list for women's football is more arbitrary than my list. I don't say my list is perfect at all, but far less. Mine is based on the FIFA World Women's Ranking a very common source in women's football. I understand the list is for national teams and not for clubs. But different then in men's football still a lot of players play in their own country (except some top national teams). This means in general that a good national team means a good league. As well the EWCR ( http://www.womenfootballdaily.com/p/ewcr-7-27-10-2015.html ) is the best European statistical calculation until now showing comparative strength of clubs. For Copa Libertadores I took the results of the last 5 years. Brazil and Chile were on top (equal to the two South American teams in the FIFA ranking). Yes it's arbitrary but far less arbitrary then putting a men's football rule on a women's football reality. But the biggest question you did not answer is if we take the 'professionalism=money' rule - only one league qualifies. Do you think that really is enough for Wikipedia, for a sport millions of people enjoy and participate in every single week. And why are the deletionists not radically attacking all the other people that did the same as me. On the confession I did, sources-wise, this was because I was new. And clearly I did not fall in a hot bath at Wikipedia. I did things with good will and the first real contact you have with people in Wikipedia are radical delitionists basically telling I'm an idiot. Wikipedia is not welcoming at all for newbie's, which is probably the reason why the website is steadily declining. Knowing myself (as professional sports statistician) I would have contributed a lot, but I was totally discouraged. Funafuti1978 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you may have been misled into thinking, the people you have come across are not "radical deletionists", they are normal editors who are familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and consensuses, and are trying to tell you what they are (this is a process all new editors have to face – I had quite a lot of stuff deleted when I first started editing, as I was unfamiliar with the rules). As one fan to another, you just have to accept that some footballers are less notable than other. I largely watch non-League football – I support A.F.C. Sudbury – and I accept that Sudbury players are not sufficiently notable enough to warrant articles. As it stands, the same is true of players in most women's leagues – interest in the leagues is not sufficient for them to be professional, and this also means that the players themselves are not sufficiently notable. Stick to creating articles on notable footballers (I believe there are a lot of female world cup players who don't have an article), and you'll be fine. You might even get some featured on the front page (as I did with Aya Sameshima and Cecilia Santiago). Number 5 7 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find I clearly dealt with the professionalism / money argument as I stated that money drives professionalism, money is generated off the back of interest, the greater the interest the more money there is so the greater level of professionalism with the opposite also being true.

Additionally, the problem you seem to be trying to create is that there need be separate notability guidelines for men's football compared to women's. WP:FPL is a listing used by a guideline that covers all football, not men's with women's as an afterthought. Again, I refer you to GNG, the overarching guideline that trumps all. notions of professionalism or level of play are irrelevant if you can show significant reliable coverage of a player in third party sources.

I would encourage you to take #57's advice, women's football is a significant element of the sport but is very much neglected here. Every country has a national team and every player who has played for their senior team will warrant an article. There is so much to be done in that space I would encourage any editor with an interest to get stuck in. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you are a football supporter of a lower (not top) division team. I am a political scientist from background. @Number57 Why is this "Trying to create articles on every political party to have won a seat in a national legislature" more notible than the top of a women's football league. I think far more people in Holland know women's players of the Vrouwen Eredivisie than they know that the Unie 55+ had some seats. And another one - WSL women's league in the UK is far from professional but is weekly covered on BBC - just like SWPL bytheway ( http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35857337 ). I just cannot get away from the thought you are a bunch of guys affraid of women taking over the world. Sorry for my populism - but the arguments are so bad. I still have no answer on if you guys think it's a good representation of a global women's sport if you can only cover the players in one women's league (NWSL - the only professional one) Funafuti1978 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All politicians who sit in a national parliament are automatically notable according to WP:POLITICIAN, so it follows that the parties they belong to are notable. In a football analogy, parties would be more akin to clubs, whilst politicians are like players, and by our standards, clubs are more notable than players (we have articles on clubs far lower down than we have for players).

With regards to your comments about the BBC coverage of the WSL, the Welsh Premier League and NIFL Premiership also have tv highlights shows, but we do not count players in either league as notable.

It's disappointing that you've resorted to inferred accusations of gender bias. As I've tried to repeatedly point out, I am interested in women's football, to the extent of going to the 2011 World Cup, and have created numerous articles on women's football. However, I know (just as well as you) that women's football is not as notable as men's football – this is why there are far fewer professional leagues, and why far fewer female footballers meet the notability guideline. Wikipedia is not a form of activism to raise the profile of women's football – we have to reflect reality. And again, I should point out that women's football coverage is not limited to the professional leagues – all players with international caps are automatically deemed notable too, so every country (except those without women's teams) has footballers you can write about. Number 5 7 17:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But again do you agree with me only 1 league qualifies your standards. And do I understand correctly that that is OK with you guys. That question is still not answered. Funafuti1978 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, three leagues qualify. See here. Regarding your question, it seems to be a leading one; if I answer yes, I'm a chauvanist, if I say no, then you'll say "let's change the rules". This is simply a case of reflecting the real world – only three women's leagues are currently successful enough to be fully-professional, and this is directly linked with notability. What I do not want to see is a situation where one group of footballers has an easier route to notability than others. Comparing two non fully-professional leagues in England, both with tv coverage and BBC Sport website coverage, why should a WSL player who plays in front of 1,022 people every week (the league's average attendance) have an article and a footballer in the National League who is watched by 1,897 every week not? Currently neither do, and it would seem particularly unfair for the former to be allowed articles when it's arguable that the latter are more notable given the higher attendances and slightly better coverage on the BBC Sport website. Number 5 7 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But certainly one of them is incorrectly called a professional league (Vrouwen Eredivisie). Since I know people there and they don't earn a penny. The other is mostly semi-professional (Damallsvenskan). So only NWSL qualifies. The fact that the no. 20 league or so of Europe is called professional next to the NWSL is simply brainless. It shows the system simply does not work. But 3 relevant leagues is a very good score. You can tell me a lot but not that only 1 (or flawed 3) leagues are notable in women's football. It's simply senseless stuff designed by people from another planet. If you not have taken it so seriously, I would have maybe said nice start those 3 leagues. But if you really want to talk facts, it's the most senseless list ever. The fact that only 6 in total have been researched, states a total lack of knowledge anyway. There are women leagues with big attendances, but they are not the best there are. So attendance is no argument as well. As well there are men's leagues in your professional list with lower than women's league attendances. So again faking you to something sensible, but factually keeping out relevant football topics. Funafuti1978 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are going round in circles here, but the basic fact is that professionalism is strongly interlinked with notability, and that's why it was chosen as the marker. Other methods have been suggested, but have never gained any real support, so you have to conclude that the system does work, which is why we've been using it for over a decade. Number 5 7 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No that's just your own created paradigm, which you use to bully out as much people as you can. So you stay in power. It has nothing to do with arguments. I have just prooven it's 100% flawed, people in the Vrouwen Eredivisie only earn very small money with some exceptions. The document from 2007 you use as source only talks about travel cost compensation. And you just keep neglecting it. Are you going to delete all of that? Your measuring with double standards Funafuti1978 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]