Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Regan

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Regan

[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)

As a soccer player, she is close to zero in terms of notability. I could not find a single GNG-qualified source about her soccer career to establish her notability. However, it seems that she has received coverage as a Los Angeles County firefighter. She is better known for being a firefighter than a soccer player, yet the article is about her being a soccer player. The next point I want to make is that she is not notable as a firefighter either. Being interviewed a couple of times due to being a female firefighter does not make her pass GNG. She has received coverage for being "one of 79 female firefighters in Los Angeles" here, here, and here. Not everyone interviewed by CNN (which is what I think most of the coverage stems from since it's the oldest interview I could find) becomes notable because of that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, United States of America, and California. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to have gotten some attention as a firefighter after retiring from soccer. WBUR in the article and this [1] seem to be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the attention as a firefighter really make her notable, though? I'm not so sure. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Regan passes WP:GNG as a firefighter. While Wake Forest Magazine is an Alumni newspaper for the relatively small Wake Forest University and is therefore probably not reliable, the combination of the WBUR piece and the CNN Business article, which has a lot of original content and doesn't really qualify as an interview in my view, is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WNUR/CNN sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above and cited sources, she's also featured for both her professional soccer and firefighting careers in a section of the book Under the Lights and In the Dark: Untold Stories of Women's Soccer by Gwendolyn Oxenham (pps. 228–230). -75.164.167.40 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per the policy of WP:ATD-I, this nominator — who is an active new page reviewer and, assuming good faith, may simply not be familiar with ATD-I — is both allowed and encouraged to unilaterally draftify new articles, especially those fewer than 90 days old, without requiring AfD consensus as a valid alternative to deletion.

Incubation satisfies WP:ATD, allows time for potential collaborative improvement, allows for soliciting feedback via AfC, and automatically deletes the draft without requiring consensus if not edited for six months. Drafts are also not required to meet WP:GNG, and if questionable notability — not verifiability or reliability of sources — is the only concern, then draftification is the most appropriate action.

Particularly, per ATD, "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input." This specific nomination admits potential notability and instead proposes deletion over content issues that could have been flagged and discussed on the Talk page, or in comments on a draftified article. Instead, the nominator made no effort to flag or improve the article before nominating. -75.164.167.40 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Devonian Wombat's reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 2 September 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.