Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Chipchase

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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Chipchase

[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)

Chipchase fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played for or managed a club in a WP:FPL or a senior national team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies as this was created 7 days after her death and the bulk of the sources are post death/not independent/unreliable. Dougal18 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Chipchase is an important figure in the historical development of English women's football. Although more recent sources were generated after her death, their content go beyond mere obituary and describe in detail her accomplishments (primarily as the manager of Donny Belles, one of the dominant clubs in the previous era). She was also discussed in several scholarly works on the history of English women's football, therefore more than satisfies WP:GNG. Seany91 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think this meets GNG. Evidently a significant figure in women's football. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my reading of sources, I can conclude that, passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been improved substantially since nomination and evidently meets the minimum standard. Likely warrants a WP:DYK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has now been spammed with sources that barely mention her - if they mention her at all. Good to know that dying and having local press write about it now ensures a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her death, there is an entire magazine page here, which is completely about her. A lot of the post-death coverage is quite strong and that's why we're able to build a biography from it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post death coverage is a few lines of biographical info padded out with a bunch of quotes from people that have some connection to Chipchase . I was under the impression that didn't count for notability purposes. She wouldn't pass GNG alive so why does dying make this any different? Dougal18 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are smart enough you withdrawal the nomination. Post-death sources count as long as the sources are in dept coverage in reliable secondary sources sources. Secondly, you don’t have to distinguish between local sources as GNG doesn’t distinguish between local and national sources. Third, go out and see there is coverage of her in off line sources (as she was notable before the internet era). And last, if you read her importance, this is defenately an article the Reader wants per Wikipedia:Readers first. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. Just because your former colleagues claim you are a "pioneer" does not make you so. Chipchase wasn't notable in life despite the post death hagiography in the town/county newspaper. Dougal18 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks seem somewhat personal – I suggest you follow the good advice you were given and back off by withdrawing the nomination. While I would not readily use a word like pioneer in Julie Chipchase's case, there is no doubt from the online coverage alone that she was a significant figure in the growth of ladies' football. The magazine article cited above is evidence of her notability in terms of offline coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After Bring back Daz Sampson improvements the article is in a much better state. Showing she clearly passes GNG. Someone should give Bring back Daz Sampson a barnster and trout Dougal18 at the same time. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gosh, look at those references - always did pass GNG, as the test is notability of the person, not how well the article is listed. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be ok now based on the improvements made by Bring back Daz Sampson. Imcdc (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (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.