Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominated:

Louise van Oosten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Liz Rijsbergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maaike van Klink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eline Koster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ilham Abali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nikki Ijzerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Wiëlle Douma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Manon van Raay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Jaimy Ravensbergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shanique Dessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maartje Looijen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pleun Raaijmakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kayra Nelemans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bo Vonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These individuals appear to have played top-level soccer in the Netherlands, all for the same team. They were all created rapidly by the same user over the span of less than three minutes. I went through the individuals that the user added entries on and have listed those here who do not appear to pass our notability criteria. The individuals listed above do not satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I'm not going to get into the SNGs, as I find the entire sports SNG claims for notability crap as it is and should all be done away with. But in regards to actual notability and the GNG, here's what I've found.

Jaimy Ravensbergen: [1] (Omroep West), [2] (Den Haag Centraal), [3] (Sleutelstad FM)

Maartje Looijen: [4] (Het Krantje)

Wiëlle Douma: [5] (Stellingwerf)

Maaike van Klink: [6] (Sleutelstad FM)

Liz Rijsbergen: [7] (Leidsch Dagblad)

Ilham Abali: [8] and [9] and [10] (Omroep Zeeland),

That was just from a purely English Google search attempt, mind you. Someone with more specific understanding and ability to search in Dutch news media will be needed. Silverseren^C 23:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all because of the obvious failure of the nominator to do a sufficiently thorough
  WP:BEFORE to determine whether these are GNG-notable rather than merely relying on the dubious SNG presumption of notability. Regardless of actual intent, this AfD creates the appearance of goal-tending to keep the women's leagues out rather than of actually following our notability guidelines. Spot-checking Silver seren's sources found two more for Maartje Looijen (not counting many sports statistics pages of the type that are routinely used to justify notability for "fully professional" players): [11] [12]. For Wiëlle Doumal: [13] (not counting [14] which is in-depth but not independent). Those were the only two I checked but I have no reason to believe that sources for them are any more or less plentiful than for any of the others. With sources so easy to find, the basis for the whole AfD needs to be reconsidered. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The first Looijen ref you link is definitely not SIGCOV--it is entirely a quote from her. The second is much heftier, but it also relies on a lot of quotes. The Douma one is routine transfer news and also does not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• not a fully professional league"--which in practice dictates that smaller countries and women leagues won't make the cut. They play at the highest level; that they are not fully professional is beside the point--if we were making an attempt at a reasonable point. So keep--but what I would really appreciate is if you simply withdraw this, and then take issue with that part of the guideline, and invite all the ones who are voting to "keep" here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    talk) 00:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Can I challenge the guideline in regards to there never having been any evidence given that having a full income from playing having anything to do with reliable source coverage? What does the source of one's income have to do with actual notability and the amount of reliable sources that cover the players? If it has something to do specifically with the teams and leagues involved, rather than the money in particular, then that needs to be specified in the SNG, rather than these unsupported claims regarding income. Silverseren^C 00:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could. But then we'd need to actually see
        talk) 01:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Mikehawk10, it sounds like you're saying "I don't make the rules, I enforce them"--but no one is forcing you to enforce them. The "fully professional" thing is wrong, and so I am not going to nominate articles based on them, and because I think that rule is wrong I am not going to say "delete cause the rule says so". Oh, wait, you said "If you'd like to challenge that guideline on the basis that the Dutch women's top league is fully professional", so I think you totally misunderstood me the first time, and I hope you understand what Silver seren and I are saying. As for canvassing--well, FOOTY rules are written by the experienced editors who are still very much involved and numerous, so a bit of canvassing might actually make it fair, haha. But don't tell GiantSnowman. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • See my comments on
        talk) 01:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • It's too narrow. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP (preferred), or else
  WP:DRAFTIFY each article to give WIR a chance to make necessary editing before these go back to Main Space. Deletion should not be an option in this case. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm also fine with draftification, though I could not find information to suggest they pass
    talk) 01:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, I'd rather we look at these on a case by case basis. Obviously there should be more effort into creating these pages, and some of these may fail NFOOTY, but I'd rather not blanket discuss all of these at once.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DRAFTIFY or treat case-by-case. I am also entirely on the side of retiring sports SNGs, or at LEAST strongly reinforcing the (existing, explicit) requirement for demonstrating GNG coverage once notability is challenged. That said, the issue I'm seeing with a lot of these bios is that the sources in both the articles and those discovered during this AfD seem to be largely derived from interviews (the bulk of the content consisting of quotes). The prevailing trend in bio AfDs is decidedly against using interviews (including proseified ones) for GNG considerations unless the author also provides SIGCOV that is clearly separate from information gleaned from the subject--e.g. substantial analysis of their career, lengthy treatment of their background, etc. This is similar to how we handle NPROF C7 for academics who are heavily quoted in relation to their findings/as an expert. Of course, some of the subjects here have more material available than others--Maartje Looijen has just about enough seemingly-independent/secondary content to count toward SIGCOV, while Wielle Douma's ref is purely routine transfer coverage which doesn't count toward notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify All; there are two issues here, the first is whether playing in the Vrouwen Eredivisie conveys notability automatically - the FPL guideline says no, although I'm sympathetic when the league in question is the national competition of the World Cup runners-up and probably has similar overall interest levels to the men's equivalent (

Croatian First Football League, which is apparently a FPL and all player articles accepted, but then again the Dutch and Croatian squads had very few players still based in those leagues). So anyway then we're looking at general notability which leads on to the second issue, being the woeful lack of quality and effort in these creations. The very basic template sentences for Manon van Raay haven't even been completed. The Soccerway source that has been used has itemised appearances which would take 5 mins to add to the infobox, but User:Zirguezi just could not be bothered before clicking Publish. A case by case basis should certainly be adopted - Lorsheijd has made 200 appearances and probably a decent amount of media coverage to confer GNG pass, van Raay has about 30 so probably far less (I haven't checked in either case) - but I don't see why any of these articles should stay in Livespace for the time being until the matter of actually making a reasonable effort to add information to them is demonstrated. Crowsus (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Procedural keep - these articles need to be looked at individually, a mass nomination like this will only end as a clusterfuck (they always do). Close and re-open individually. GiantSnowman 08:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the technical discussion above. This is exactly what

WP:MULTIAFD is designed to manage so that we don't have a daily log full of identical nominations (which is what we had a first). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify all as these articles are very basic and underbaked. Seems already a few users here and a few at WIR are willing to have a look for more sources (which doesn't seem was done before the AfD creation) and to improve the articles. Once improved and published to mainspace, then one can talk about AfD on a case-per-case basis. --SuperJew (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep Should be nominated individually at AfD. Having to search for sources for 16 different people is far too much work. Dougal18 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’m the user that created to above pages for players. Before creating the pages I was not aware of all the policies that
  User:Mikehawk10 has pointed out, so thank you for that. Also thanks to all the other users who took the time to review the pages. If I had known so many people would review the articles, I would have added more content before submitting them. Unfortunately, I ran out of time that day and submitted the articles thinking I’d expand upon them later. I’m still planning on expanding upon them this weekend. I would like to expand at least the statistics, club career and personal life sections in all the mentioned articles. As a native Dutch speaker I should be able to find significant sources for this. As such I voted to keep as I think deleting the articles now will prevent them being expanded upon. Since many of these players are at the start of their career it is likely only a matter of time before an article is created again. I’m a bit surprised about the notability of athlete’s discussion. I don’t want to challenge the established policy but the current requirement to me seems to be arbitrary. In particular it seems unreasonably harsh towards the players in womans football (in the case in the Netherlands) some of whom get more air/play time (in the media) than some junior male players who are considered notable. I did check whether a player is notable in my opinion before creating an article. Mainly look at the Dutch Wikipedia to see if they already had an article. As such I decided for example not to create an article for nl:Sharona Tieleman because she might soon be retiring due to injury. ~ Zirguezi 11:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Zirguezi, thank you for writing up those articles. "I don’t want to challenge the established policy but..."--well, it's time to challenge them, and some of us are ready to do that. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Mass_deletion_nomination_of_14_women_Footballers_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Lorsheijd. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Mikehawk10 was only noting the failure to meet the SNG as an additional issue to the lack of SIGCOV IRS found. Could you find sources that cover the subjects in detail without using a bunch of quotes? Or is this just how Dutch media generally discusses people? JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I checked the first entry on the list and immediately found whart look like sources covering the subject: [15][16] As such, it's clear that we can't simply treat these as a block and they would need to be nominated for deletion individually, with clear evidence that the nominator has made a proper effort to look for sources. No doubt this was done in good faith, but as noted by GiantSnowman, a
  Mikehawk10 for combining so many AFDs in this fashion.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • NB: read the technical discussion section to see how these went from individual nominations to one nomination. —
    talk) 15:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yeah, this is exactly what

WP:MULTIAFD is designed to manage so that we don't have a daily log full of identical nominations (which is what we had a first). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Based on comments by Zirguezi, with expected expansion and reliable sources articles will qualify. --dashiellx (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - no productive discussion can be had by bundling all of these living people into one discussion. Some of them likely pass GNG but some of them may not. No prejudice against renominating in the future if
  WP:SIGCOV is searched for but not found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Drafity all I was going to suggest a procedural keep at first for bundling all these players together (I think players should be discussed individually, personally), but looking at the quality of the articles in question I think putting them into the draft space is easily the better choice. The articles are all completely bare-bones, not even stub quality honestly. I don't see a procedural keep as addressing the key issue here: although there is probably a fair question of notability, a far more pressing issue is the lack of substance in the articles. Let them be improved in the draft space first. Jay eyem (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep all: While I dislike pointing BEFORE fingers generally, I question the degree to which the nom actually dug. Just looking at the very first name on the list, Lorsheijd's been capped by the national team, and that took me less than a minute to find out. Obviously these are sub-stubs, but let's examine them individually. Ravenswing 22:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No she hasn't, she's been in squads but never actually capped. Crowsus (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These are
  Mikehawk10 is knowledgeable about Dutch football, perhaps he might care to AfD some articles of male players who were active up to the 1990s when the top two levels of Dutch football were largely semi-pro? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    talk) 01:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Procedural keep as each one needs to be looked at individually. All of the discussion above is convoluted by the fact there are too many articles nominated together. Just because they've played in the same league, doesn't mean that they're all non notable or all notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* please see

WP:MULTIAFD. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Given that this case involves multiple BLPs and that GNG can override NFOOTBALL, it's going to be a nightmare discussion for any admin to close. Some of these footballers have already been asserted to pass GNG and some have no support for that yet. If it were a simple case of "if you fail NFOOTBALL, then you don't have an article" then I would support bundling but I'm not sure how a productive discussion around the individual GNG merits of each of these people can effectively be done in a bundled discussion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the rationale provided; it wasn't about GNG. Participants are free to disagree with that rationale, but they are all being nominated for the same reason, and with exactly the same nominating statement. It makes no sense to run 16 identical AFDs simultaneously. That people are now urging disregard for NFOOTY doesn't change the origin of the AFD. Anyway, clearly people have had jack of NFOOTY and have decided this should be a test case. So be it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify all (and likewise for several similar articles created by Zirguezi that were missed in this nomination). Very obviously, none of these articles are sufficiently developed for mainspace, lacking both content and sourcing that would demonstrate notability. It has been well established at ANI that mass-production of bare bones micro-stubs from databases is not accepted by the community; hopefully Zirguezi is aware of this now. The alternative of relisting as individual AFDs seems like a total waste of everyone's time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all The reference to
  WP:TRAINWRECK! Kittens and trainwrecks are not a good combination so interested parties should take them away and follow up the various promising leads given above instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Procedural keep and assess on a case-by-case basis. Misapplication of SNG without consideration of GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: it's clear the nominator never bothered to assess
  WP:GNG individually. Seany91 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep No sigh of
  WP:BEFORE. I searched on Nikki IJzerman and found multiple independent secondary sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:12, 12 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.