Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griffith Vaissaire


 * 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 delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Griffith Vaissaire

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South America. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Although the subject hadn't much coverage, I managed to find 3 sources (1 & 2 & 3) and added them to the page. She plays for a Dutch club and two of the sources are in Dutch meaning that she managed to attract some local media attention in the Netherlands. AmshitBalcon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Source 1 seems to be a translation of the 2nd (or the other way around), and neither that nor the 3rd say much more that she was called for the national team, so that's not a GNG pass. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per AmshitBalcon. I found 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The ED source is paywalled. The others are the usual drivel you claim is GNG/SIGCOV. Vaissaire lives and plays in the Netherlands so doesn't have a "club career abroad". That shows your understanding of the sources. BTW playing football no longer makes someone notable so stop spamming AFD with that non argument. Dougal18 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - If we look at the sources provided above, it is clear that most of them are versions of the same press release announcing a Suriname call-up for Vaissaire (and another diaspora player). This press release contains very little information about Vaissaire; she plays amateur football for SSS in the Topklasse (second level) and futsal for a club that competes in district-level tournaments. There is a Suriname match preview which drops her name, and a note that she won an award with her futsal team. This coverage is about all I could find online, and it is woefully short of satisfying the WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources clearly do not demonstrate GNG. Agreed with about spamming useless sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental disagreement about the quality of sources presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Needs additional citations Zangoaviation (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Zangoaviation (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Sources do not meet GNG. Please stop spamming AfDs with passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete — The sources are not strong enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFOOT. Popo Dameron  ⁠ talk  01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that the subject passes WP:GNG. Merely being a player cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Essentially, I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:NATHLETE is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE or GNG. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Jogurney's comment 2 weeks ago is still relevant here. Nobody has been able to present any evidence of sourcing that helps address the shortfalls that have been pointed out on 16/3. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Although some references were presented but I feel they are not notable enough to support the "Keep" claim. Charsaddian (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2023 (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.