Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. There's severe disagrement here between those that find the presented sources to constitute substantive coverage, and those that do not. Given the evidence presented here, both arguments are based in policy, in that the coverage provided is in the gray area between obviously insufficent and obviously sufficient. I could relist this, but the discussion has received a lot of input, and has failed to reach consensus; as such a fresh start may be preferable. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lorsheijd

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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

Was kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds along with the other 15 players. Lorsheijd fails WP:FOOTBALL having never played or managed in a WP:FPL or played for a senior national team. Her being an unused substitute for the Netherlands doesn't count. WP:GNG is also failed due to a lack of independent significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same sentence from WP:BASIC then goes on to say trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability; this is equally as important as the part that you have quoted. Have you found any non-trivial coverage of this living person? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see all the links I started with. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles, including the four that mention Lorsheijd in the title, are examples of trivial coverage as they only contain, at best, one or two sentences on her and we must also consider the fact that these are transfer announcements on her in local sports press. WP:SIGCOV in the context of a sportsperson is required to "addresses the topic directly and in detail". We do have this interview, which contains some non-routine coverage, but it's from the club that she plays for so cannot be considered as an independent source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These article are about her, so that are not Trivial mentions. Just cite the full citation please you started, including “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” So that is already enough, but stil you can add on top of that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"SportsOlympic (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial coverage. Footnote #7 at the bottom of WP:BASIC makes this clear and gives "Mary Jones was hired by My University" as an example of a trivial piece of coverage. In the same way, "Lorsheijd signs for ADO Den Haag" here is trivial coverage unless the article expands upon that in any way, which it does not. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, both the title and news item isn't that someone was merely hired to their next team. It is that a player returned after several years to a team. This constitutes of a dramatic twist in a career, as players leave to stronger (higher pay) or weaker (lower pay) teams but are not very likely to return to exactly the same team where they already played. It's a mistranslation and a trivialization of something that is not trivial whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the note made by Spiderone. Footnote #7 is about a "simple directory entry or a mention in passing". The above example he gives is a whole article about her contract with ADO Den Haag and background information. That can't be named a trivial mention. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contract information and background as mere context are WP:ROUTINE coverage and don't confer notability in any way. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out before, the issue at hand is not some contract information but a major twist in a career, as written in the article. You chose to disregard that text – your right – but it doesn't change any facts. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under what notability guideline? As far as I am aware, female footballers are still required to meet WP:GNG at a minimum. If we wish to pursue equality then we should be applying the same standards of GNG to both males and females. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated because it survived a WP:TRAINWRECK, fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clearly that this passes the WP:GNG. Since all Women Eredivsie players seem to pass the WP:GNG, it's time to adjust which leagues are recognized for WP:NFOOTY. A problem with WP:FPL is that the Netherlands and other countries fake paid football leagues to be amateur leagues. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has yet to be reached about passing GNG. It may be 9-1 in favour of keeping but there is still 4 days left. It's up to the closer anyway. Claiming all players in the league seem to pass GNG is a sweeping generalisation that shouldn't be made. Dougal18 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will receive further scrutiny but, given the broad consensus in multiple discussions, this could be the direction. I now see one person who agrees with you. Seems to have a problem with the fact that women projects have an impact at Wikipedia. Personally, I believe it is best to judge each article on its merits. That's why I support keep. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. All people asserting "meets GNG" without actually showing how this meets GNG look rather foolish now that I've taken the time to go through the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus (not a vote) was reached across several discussions. No coincidence. There are much stronger arguments to keep than to delete across multiple discussions. Also the idea to delete this article is a WP:BEFORE failure. People look for sources in the article, disregarding WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't a consensus and the arguments to delete are led by existing policy and guidelines. The arguments for keep are little more than a pile on asserting notability and meeting WP:GNG when plainly this individual does not. What is behind this is a wiki project obsessing over it's statistics and repeatedly having drives to create articles driven by those stats. What often results is a series of poor articles on non-notable individuals. When these are proposed for deletion instead of a reasonable discussion there is a series of allegations of misogyny and various other ad hominem followed by this tactic of a mass pile and making life very unpleasant for anyone concerned with creating quality articles in their usual domain area. I pity anyone who closes this, it should be a straight delete but I'm willing to bet that any such decision will be met with even more howls of protest. The answer of course should be to write quality articles on notable individuals and this wouldn't be an issue. WCMemail 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did transfer news, international call ups and making saves (a goalie's job) combine to pass GNG? Dougal18 (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about tagging a user who you ask a long question, Dougal18? Same applies to NemesisAT elsewhere; he was never tagged. It's a small courtesy that really takes no time! gidonb (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...which is precisely the point of such discussions, that WP editors involved in related projects to participate. So consider it noted. Seany91 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except all them are pile-on pure votes, with no commentary on the sources themselves, which is a mark of canvassing. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avilich, it's a unique and extreme achievement, NOT a routine milestone! If you had read on to the next phrase it says explicitly: "Geen speelster is vaker voor ADO Den Haag Vrouwen uitgekomen dan Barbara Lorsheyd." This translates to "No player has appeared for ADO Den Haag Vrouwen more often than Barbara Lorsheyd." First ever achievements contribute to the notability of a person and definitely do not undermine it! The professional standard is irrelevant once the WP:GNG is met. As pointed out above, sooner or later it will be reviewed to include women. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reaching a number of matches for a specific club is more a milestone than achievement, and doesn't confer notability. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out before, the issue at hand is not some personal milestone but an extreme, record-setting achievement in a prime league club, as written in the article. You chose to disregard – your right – but it doesn't change any facts. gidonb (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Pretending all the coverage is 'trivial' isn't a compelling case when there's so much of it and they're articles directly about her. It must also be said that this nominator has a very poor grasp of the relevant issues, to put it politely: see for example here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ADO Den Haag (women)/other suitable ATD if there is one/Delete if there is none or potentially Draftify given there is a possibility this player could eventually represent their national team. Source analysis:
    1. soccerway: database profile, not significant coverage per SIGCOV
    2. teamnl.org: database profile, again
    3. adovrouwen.nl: trivial name-check as part of a listing of all players of a team
    4. haaglandenvoetbal.nl: trivial coverage of routine transfer, basically not much more than a name-check
    5. adodenhaag.nl: an interview, not an acceptable source for showing notability, as per long-standing practice
    6. omroepwest.nl: the sum-total of the coverage is basically THE HAGUE - ADO Den Haag goalkeeper Barbara Lorsheyd can hope for her debut in the Dutch national team. She has been selected by the Hague national coach Sarina Wiegman for the friendly against Denmark.. The rest is simply similarly short paragraphs or name-checks of other players on the team.
    7. rtvoost.nl: this might be the nearest to SIGCOV, but it is basically only "player has been selected for training camp, in replacement of injured player". Rather routine.
    8. nu.nl/voetbal: simply a name-check as part of a list of all players of the team
In short, you have basically only one source which even looks like it could be meeting GNG (it does not). A lot of trivial coverage does not confer notability; nor does meeting some arbitrary milestone number of matches or the like. Additional sources linked by others here are similarly not WP:SIGCOV. All keep votes which are asserting that this meets GNG should really have spent their time actually looking at the sources, or finding better ones. Other keep arguments are dubious at best, like the ad hominem of "this nominator has a very poor grasp of the relevant issues". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but coverage like this, this and this (alongside what you have posted already) address the subject in reasonable WP:DEPTH and make it pretty clear that WP:BASIC is met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was edited after it had been replied to. In doing so, its author added two sources, claiming that they "address the subject in reasonable WP:DEPTH and make it pretty clear that WP:BASIC is met". Let's look at both of them:
  1. "Aftrappen met... (4): Barbara Lorsheyd" - this is clearly an interview, quoting words directly from the subject at length: "Lorsheyd notes in conversation with Voetbal Centraal. [...]", so it fails the "independent" part of GNG, and the website looks dubious: it looks like some form of football magazine (see nl:ELF Football), but beyond the unsourced promotional claims on the Dutch WP article ("is a football magazine that appears eleven times a year and is the largest football monthly in the Netherlands"), I can't find much (beyond confusion with the "European League of Football, something entirely unrelated), putting the "reliable" part in doubt too.
  2. "The routine and the talent: the ADO goalkeepers make each other better (photos)": While there's no doubt this in a reliable source, this looks quite like routine coverage (soundbites from sportsmen on the spur of the moment), and is again clearly based nearly in whole on an on-pitch interview. The only material about the subject is, again, from her own mouth, making this a questionable source at best, and not one to be considered for notability anyways. Again, if you want to convince people, I really suggest you make a new comment highlighting 2 or 3 (as suggested by WP:THREE) sources which meet all three of the criteria. WP:NOTEBOMBING the article, as you have again done, just discourages people and is kind of rude, especially when many of the sources still have the same problems as other ones identified previously. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a human interest interview: "Barbara Lorsheyd is not from the dates. When she made her debut, she has no clue. Who she replaced has slipped her mind. "There are also a lot of two hundred official matches," she says. "There are also many more in total, because the practice matches and my period with the Dutch team, Telstar and FC Twente are not even included."" An interview is not "independent of the subject"; so no, does not meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a longform interview in a national newspaper is usually quite a good indicator of WP:GNG being met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An interview is still not independent of the subject. Look up WP:WHYN: "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." Basing an article on an interview is obviously a bad idea as far as this is concerned. Even if it were a "good indicator", it would actually require other sources (i.e. GNG requires multiple sources). Which you have not shown. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple third party, independent sources here - hence all the keep !votes. You seem to be grasping at ever more tenuous ways to try and discredit them all, and are failing pretty miserably. In fact if anyone "appears foolish" here it's you... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," - yes, most of the sources above seem reliable, and a fair few of them are independent of the subject, but those that meet both of these criteria do not offer significant coverage... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHYN item 1: you need sigcov "in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article". You don't write a proper encyclopedic article with WP:Routine factoids like injuries, saves, contract details and milestones, or someone's mundane opinion of mundane events as reported by an interview. The latter itself also fails the 3rd-party/independent requirement, he is correct about that. Avilich (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@talk:RandomCanadian, maybe in your opinion it's not significant coverage. But to others it is. Thats why those articles are being written. Also something the readers wants. @RandomCanadian: Please cite the whole sentence that continues with "..rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.". That is definitely not the case, if you see the article already it's much more than that. SportsOlympic (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, someone has WP:NOTEBOMBED the article. Looking at the new sources that were not in when I checked earlier today )[3]):
18. haaglandenvoetbal.nl : only a name-check, despite being in the title
14. tubantia.nl : again, only a name-check, despite being in the title
13. rtlnieuws.nl : trivial name-check, The Dutch women's team under 23 will take part in a heavily occupied international tournament in Sweden from May 26 to June 1. All countries are allowed to include a maximum of three dispensation players (born before 1996) in the selection. In the Netherlands this concerns the keepers Barbara Lorsheyd (ADO The Hague) and Jennifer Vreugdenhil (Valencia CF). (and its a call up for the U23, not the national squad, which explains the dubious notability)
12. onsoranje.nl : a database entry, only confirms she played for the U19 team (and she's now 30...)
11. omroepwest.nl : trivial name-check
10. vrouwenvoetbalnederland.nl : "Barbara Lorsheyd , goalkeeper of ADO Den Haag looks back"; "Source: ADO The Hague" - clearly not an independent source (it's basically a release from the club itself?)
Now, I'm not going to go through the rest, since the results are likely similar, and the only one that is cited for substantial stuff more than once is no. 5, an obvious interview. If you want to convince people, the same standard applies as for any other AfD: whether its a footballer, an obscure poet from the 18th century, your favourite rock band, or whatever. Show us WP:THREE sources which are all of "independent of the subject", "reliable", and "significant coverage". This shouldn't be hard. If it is, it suggests the subject probably doesn't warrant an article, in which case redirecting to the most appropriate place (or probably, since there are too many, deleting or draftifying) would be the most appropriate option. This has nothing to do with the topic of the article: it has all to do with the existence of appropriate sources to write an encyclopedic article, as opposed to a routine chronicle of run-of-the-mill sports events (see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:NOTNEWS). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that people will go to in finding a plausible pretext to delete women's sports biographies. I contributed to one the other day where a guy was trying to claim regional media was not independent because it came from the same region as the article subject (?) I thought that was a tenuous rationale for deletion until I came across some of the stuff here, like the imaginary rule against using interviews in WP:RSs to establish WP:N. Often antipathy for female sports (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is sublimated into the most nonsensical, delusional ravings and this is a classic of the genre. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is special pleading, combined with a fair dose of ad hominems. As I said, and you can verify this from my previous edits at AfD, I apply the same standards, whether it is a footballer, a random artist, or anything else. The way to fight WP:BIAS is not to exclude desired groups from other guidelines, but to actually apply the same standards consistently. If you don't like it, well then that's a case of WP:RGW, not of "nonsensical, delusional ravings" (which could borderline be taken as a personal attack). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Lorsheijd_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079905877"