Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Demulder

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Well, these football bio articles do get heated. Reading this is like a roller coaster of contempt for other editors. But, at the very end of this discussion, the conclusion is that there exist sources that establish GNG even if there are individual editors who disagree and others who are not clear on what factors count towards notability. If it matters, I do not follow sports and have no opinion on whether this article should be Kept or Deleted, I'm just reading all of the comments and assessing the arguments presented right up until a few hours ago. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Demulder

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Georges Demulder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

67 newspaper pages contain the name Georges Demulder (+1 page in a magazine). Maybe someone has access? gidonb (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I don't see the article failing in
    WP:GNG. It was commented in previous AfD that Belgium has a lack of online information about newpapers database, so I believe that there is a satisfactory amount of offline sources, as demonstrated by @gidonb. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I'm in full agreement with Svartner. This is no notability failure, just an access to sources problem. There are plenty of sources offline. Also, the article is no longer a stub. gidonb (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are online sources as well, but don't expect google to find them for you. A first step is make an account on belgica.be [1] Cattivi (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help, Cattivi! I found out the existence above, just couldn't get access. This is awesome! A barnstar is on the way!!! gidonb (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think this article is very weak overall, I agree with Svartner about the relative availability of sources required for SIGCOV. If we only interpret SIGCOV as strictly as possible, only articles about modern footballers from countries with developed leagues and media infrastructures will exist—which goes against the very principle of Wikipedia. Anwegmann (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not true,
the directory of allfootballers. If you want completeness, check the special websites; this is what I do. This may be hard to accept but it is a foundational principle. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not talking about the "pre-modern" era. I'm talking about countries, leagues, and teams with very, very little coverage in what we identify as "reliable" sources due to their global obscurity. I'm referencing
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anwegmann (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
So, what do you suggest we do in case there is, for whatever reason, very little coverage in reliable sources? Bend the rules? Ignore them? Because this is what your suggestion implies. (By the way, those quotation marks around "reliable" suggest you do not think much of Wikipedia considering
verifiability through reliable sources it is quite certain that it will never adequately cover (as adequately as a football encyclopaedia, for example) those countries and leagues. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because our subject does not meet
    directory of a country's footballers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If the article was a one-sentence stub, I could perhaps see this as a failure of NOTDIRECTORY; however, this article has been expanded to something pretty decent and there appear to be several sources specifically about him added? (especially the one: "De vuurdoop van G. Demulder in Belgie-Zwitserland" [G. Demulder's baptism by fire in Belgium-Switzerland]) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the text is truly irrelevant in the matter. The article could've been 20 thousand words long and of fine prose and still be a legitimate candidate for deletion. This is not about the text's quantity or quality.It's about whether or not there are enough
notability. End of story. And there are not! The single relevant reference, beyond listings and the like, is the one you also mention, in a 1939 newspaper clipping. Where are the books? The articles on Belgium's football history? Where is the "significant coverage"? I'm sorry but this is truly inadequate. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
My reference to its length is regarding whether or not it fails NOTDIRECTORY (something the expansion makes irrelevant here). Regarding notability, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that we need all the different articles and books on a nation's sporting history to mention this individual athlete for that athlete to be notable. It is of note that we have very little access to media of Belgium from that age (can you access any of the books on Belgium's football history?), so even if there were many articles mentioning him in regards to Belgium's football history we'd only have access to a few. Of the sources we do have access to, what's wrong with the newspaper source? That appears to pass "significant coverage"'s definition of "directly and in-depth", does it not? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since opinion is divided, it would be helpful to get an assessment of improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is still room for improvement, but this player played for Sporting one of the top clubs in Portugal. Not to mention the Belgium National team. It's weak on sources yes, but that doesn't negate it. Govvy (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...it absolutely negates it. ltbdl (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have run out of ways to phrase this,
randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Blah, blah, bla, blab, ba? There was no need to ping with a load of RTMs, I've been on wikipedia for years. Are you going to bother doing any of your own research?? It wouldn't be that hard to find good sources if you wanted too. The height of laziness is to write an opinion without validation. Govvy (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all,
Understood
? Secondly, I do not care about editors' backgrounds or records. I treat everyone equally, with the same respect. Your years in Wikipedia mean very little in AfD discussions.
Thirdly, I was very clear about my opinion: There are not enough sources. So, what kind of research exactly do you want me to do? If I say "there are not enough sources" that's a negative opinion. You seriously want me to prove a negative?! How does that work exactly? I'm supposed to bring forward all the sources in the world and point out that no source carries a good enough mention of Demulder? If I say "XYZ cannot be found," that's a claim that cannot be logically supported but can be trivially refuted! I.e. by producing XYZ - or a bunch of XYZs. Work that out for a while, please, and then respond. -The Gnome (talk)
Bla, bla, blobby, bloggy! Thanks for your meaningless post, please don't ping me again. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a message forum or some "party website",
Fair & last warning. -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What are you on about? I told you not to ping me. Get my shit together? Seems to me you have the problem, if you ping me again I will just report you to the admin for harassment. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, kindly stop it. You both disagree and will not get each other to change opinions. Leave it at that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement is fine; I even welcome it. But
uncivil, boorish behavior is unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It appears both of you have crossed that line; Bla, bla, blobby, bloggy! Thanks for your meaningless post and Get your **** together both are uncivil and unneeded remarks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nonsense. ltbdl (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"surely there are sources" is not an acceptable argument either. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"surely he is notable" would not be an acceptable argument, HOWEVER IJA DID NOT say that. IJA said that the international cap(s) contribute to Demulder's importance as a footballer. That is a highly acceptable argument to make in an AfD. As a player on the national team, Demulder was more than just a frequent player on Belgian and Portuguese top-tier teams! gidonb (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, maybe someone who actually speaks Belgian can attest to the non-triviality of the newspaper source and the state of 1930s footballer sourcing in Belgium. @
    Fram? JoelleJay (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As it happens, I speak French fluently. (In Belgium, they speak French and Flemish. There is no "Belgian" language.) What's the task exactly? -The Gnome (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the task is reading this newspaper source (though that looks like Dutch, I think). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome, so someone missed a word. It happens to me all the time! JoelleJay, reading Belgian Dutch (aka Flemish) fluently, I can attest that the article is nontrivial SIGCOV of the most independent nature. The famous Belgian sports journalist Pol Jaquemyns, who has an article on Nlwiki, ANALYZES the playing style of Demulder and how it would contribute (or not), to the Belgian national team. Furthermore, by the 1930s football was very well covered in Belgium, in the local, regional, and national press, as well as in special sports dailies and magazines. The problem is access to these sources. gidonb (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if he meets SPORTCRIT then that's probably enough until we get access to further sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Gidonb's analysis of the newspaper sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georges_Demulder&oldid=1215117106"