Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Verspaget


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Amber Verspaget

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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. Dougal18 (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep Nominator failed to show any sign of WP:Before. Verspaget plays in the Dutch Eredivisie, the highest national football league, where she is an important player (example here). She meets GNG by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources: Algemeen Dagblad: here; Eindhovens Dagblad here and here. A local news source here. And just nice to read here. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Playing in the Eredivisie Vrouwen doesn't make someone notable. Source 1 is routine coverage (she scored a goal), source 2 is routine (she tore her cruciate ligament) source 3 is a quote from Verspagen and from a press release, source 4 is a couple of paragraphs shared with Pleun Raaijmakers, source 5 is routine (person comes back from injury) and 6 is from the sponsors of the league she plays in. Dougal18 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that source 5 is more than a passing mention. Not sure about the rest, I agree that they aren't clear cut on the SIGCOV element Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that these sources are routine coverage. An injury, a transfer, an interview is news and a reason to start writing an article about her with also background information and not a “regular event”. And even if people still have the opinion that these articles are routine, it’s not a valid reason per What is and is not routine coverage that states 1) "routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability. 2) "routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If Verspaget hadn't been injured 2+5 would have never been written and this would be a delete. When a sportperson is relying on stories about their injuries to pass GNG then that goes to show how unnotable they are. Dougal18 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * “If…, then…” is never a valid deletion argument. Keep looking at the facts. SportsOlympic (talk)
 * She was injured and came back from the injury. Two (stretching multiple sources to the limit) websites wrote about it. Those facts? Dougal18 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per SportsOlympic. She is evidently a significant figure in Dutch ladies' football and the sources above will ensure GNG. Article needs to be developed, not deleted. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She is such a "significant figure" she's won no trophies and no international caps. Dougal18 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s about coverage, not about achievements. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't see anything in WP:GNG about a need to win glittering prizes. How many football articles would we have to delete if that was the main criterion? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "She is evidently a significant figure in Dutch ladies' football" On what basis? It can't be for her unsuccessful playing career. Dougal18 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Significant coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She gets two articles written purely because of her injury. That's it. The susanrozemeijer.nl article is of dubious reliability. Keeping this discriminates against players who don't get injured and have their stories in the press. Dougal18 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - playing in the Eredivisie Vrouwen is irrelevant; as noted above, paying in the league does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. However, based on sources presented, WP:GNG is clearly met and she is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated above by SportsOlympic. NemesisAT (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly passes WP:GNG. Seany91 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – passes the WP:GNG hurdle per sources above. gidonb (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.